Can Tulsa ever be successful (more wins than losses) in D1?

[TheGoldenTulsas]

I like your posts and your comments about TCU are accurate. I went there for undergrad, so I'm well aware of the lack of enthusiasm that was present for TCU football before they joined the BIG 12.

Montgomery has already proven he is an inferior coach in all manner of perspective and analysis: play calling, courage, strategy, mid-game adjustments, recruiting, community involvement, comportment, polish, and most importantly WINNING.

TU's students mostly don't care at all about football. There was a decent amount of interest on campus at certain times, but certainly not lately. How can a college football team thrive when they only have 30,000 alumni alive in the entire world (and far lower number in the Tulsa area) and 4,000 students who are pretty apathetic to TU unless they happen to be undefeated. Tulsans completely gave up on TU after OSU got more prominent and OU takes the rest of the casual fans.

TU was right there in the game in the 4th quarter in 5 games vs top-25 (or close) teams this year, winning 1 (Wyoming). TU's talent should be manhandled by teams of that caliber. He's not recruiting well, but he's keeping most should-be-blowout games close which is better than what Blankenship did, even in TU's good years under him.

 

[goldenhurricane2]

That's the best response you have? You know you've won an argument when the only thing they can do is ad hominem attack like an ape.

Sort of like all the idiots calling Greta Thunberg a childish idiot rather than respond to the dire and very real facts about climate change.

what courses do you teach?

 

[Babe the Blue Ox]

That's the best response you have? You know you've won an argument when the only thing they can do is ad hominem attack like an ape.

This could get interesting.

 

[TU 1978]

I had no idea Levit had begun posting on here.

 

[goldenhurricane2]

He/she could have tried a little harder to disguise the trolling. Come on, professor. You can do better!

 

[chito_and_leon]

That's the best response you have? You know you've won an argument when the only thing they can do is ad hominem attack like an ape..

Good lord, was "ad hominem" the Alexa word of the day or something? I haven't seen it used this much in ages. Ad hominem is high on my list of "put on daddy's tie and trousers and pretend to be a big boy" words.

And yes, I understand the irony of making an ad hominem attack about using "ad hominem."

 

[goldenhurricane2]

Good lord, was "ad hominem" the Alexa word of the day or something? I haven't seen it used this much in ages. Ad hominem is high on my list of "put on daddy's tie and trousers and pretend to be a big boy" words.

And yes, I understand the irony of making an ad hominem attack about using "ad hominem."

i like the use of “trousers”

 

[chito_and_leon]

what courses do you teach?

The really bad thing is that this shouldn't be academics vs. athletics - the admin is screwing them both up. They should be working arm in arm in opposition to the incompetence of the administration. One of the admin's great achievements has been making allies turn against each other rather than fighting together against the real problem that they both face.

 

[Babe the Blue Ox]

i like the use of “trousers”

I prefer "britches".

 

[chito_and_leon]

he's keeping most should-be-blowout games close which is better than what Blankenship did, even in TU's good years under him.

Yeah that 2012 year where we went 11-3 and lost the 3 games by an average of 9 points a game was brutal.

Don't get me wrong, Blankenship was a terrible hire but your efforts to defend Money are ust at odds with the facts.

 

[goldenhurricane2]

I prefer "britches".

Can’t go wrong with that either.

 

[TU 1978]

Don't get me wrong, Blankenship was a terrible hire but your efforts to defend Money are ust at odds with the facts.

That’s almost a Freudian slip, but with the new TU plan Freud probably isn’t studied any more, not being STEM and all.

 

[chito_and_leon]

That’s almost a Freudian slip, but with the new TU plan Freud probably isn’t studied any more, not being STEM and all.

LOL. Remember we're doubling down on IO psychology, because chasing the most recent fad is a much better business strategy than having a strong business-driven rationale for your priorities.

 

[tupatsfan]

what courses do you teach?

just another typical liberal weirdo professor at TU. You gonna throw a banana at me?

 

[goldenhurricane2]

just another typical liberal weirdo professor at TU. You gonna throw a banana at me?

you gonna throw your poop back at him?

 

[tupatsfan]

you gonna throw your poop back at him?

that’s the plan!

 

[TU_BLA]

that’s the plan!

What was this thread about again?

 

[goldenhurricane2]

What was this thread about again?

trousers, britches, and throwing poop.

oh and professor ad hominem.

 

['Cane-man]

What was this thread about again?

Can TU Football get back to winning more games than they lose.

They should have more wins than losses this year. Should have won at least half of the games last year.

 

[TheGoldenTulsas]

If the academics are in upheaval and our "Harvard of the Southwest" status is no more, I'd like to see Tulsa go back to the way it was in the early '90s when TU had lower academic standards and a kickass football team that beat A&M and gave MIami a run for their money and garnered crowds of 40k plus each weekend. I don't attend TU anymore, and my degree from TU gave me absolutely ZERO opportunities to enter Tulsa's job market, so to hell with it. Let's at least excel at football, since as alumni, it's the only damn thing that matters: bragging rights and mainstream exposure.

Go back to the way it was in the early 90s? TU had 1 year at 10-2 and the next best was a 6-6 year and the rest were around 4-7 to 3-8 and the stadium was really empty most games. Those seasons are better than now and it was awesome having so many TU alumni in the NFL, but that wasn't a great era and people on this thread mentioned the Rader era as especially painful.

TU was great in the 50s and at times in the 60s and 70s and obviously good in the late 2000s to early 2010s when TU had lowered academic standards for athletes and created sports degrees for them. I don't see TU suddenly figuring out some new ground breaking way to get Tulsans to care about TU football again.

Did anyone on here remember the nearly empty stadiums TU had to play for, even when they were undefeated? Then if TU had an early loss (like OU in 2007 or ECU in 2010), fan attendance plummeted because obviously if you lose 62-21, you must suck and casual fans and most students don't care much any more (I don't agree, but I ran into that chain of thought a lot). Then if you look at all the most well-attended games in recent history and home games vs ranked opponents, they're almost all loses (OSU, OU, UH several times, Boise St, Memphis).

TU has proven to casual fans again and again they don't win the big games and even if they do and it's an away game (like @Notre Dame), the stadium will be empty the next week anyways.The AD and admin are probably befuddled by that. TU casual fans seem to only be interested in an undefeated team and one that wins a big game. Die hards support them no matter what but that's a very small group that hasn't grown at all (see this official Tulsa board with like 10 regular users).

I like that I'm supposedly a professor because I don't see any recovery for TU football. I'm a TU football fan and I'm tired of this pathetic product they've put out since Graham's recruits graduated (That 8-5 team that lost to 4 top 25 teams was the most talented in TU history, with excellent o-line depth but Blankenship couldn't even get 1 upset win and lost another they shouldn't have). I'll check back in 5 years after the next coach gets axed for going 2-10 five straight seasons to see how the fan base on here grows.

 

[goldenhurricane2]

Go back to the way it was in the early 90s? TU had 1 year at 10-2 and the next best was a 6-6 year and the rest were around 4-7 to 3-8 and the stadium was really empty most games. Those seasons are better than now and it was awesome having so many TU alumni in the NFL, but that wasn't a great era and people on this thread mentioned the Rader era as especially painful.

TU was great in the 50s and at times in the 60s and 70s and obviously good in the late 2000s to early 2010s when TU had lowered academic standards for athletes and created sports degrees for them. I don't see TU suddenly figuring out some new ground breaking way to get Tulsans to care about TU football again.

Did anyone on here remember the nearly empty stadiums TU had to play for, even when they were undefeated? Then if TU had an early loss (like OU in 2007 or ECU in 2010), fan attendance plummeted because obviously if you lose 62-21, you must suck and casual fans and most students don't care much any more (I don't agree, but I ran into that chain of thought a lot). Then if you look at all the most well-attended games in recent history and home games vs ranked opponents, they're almost all loses (OSU, OU, UH several times, Boise St, Memphis).

TU has proven to casual fans again and again they don't win the big games and even if they do and it's an away game (like @Notre Dame), the stadium will be empty the next week anyways.The AD and admin are probably befuddled by that. TU casual fans seem to only be interested in an undefeated team and one that wins a big game. Die hards support them no matter what but that's a very small group that hasn't grown at all (see this official Tulsa board with like 10 regular users).

I like that I'm supposedly a professor because I don't see any recovery for TU football. I'm a TU football fan and I'm tired of this pathetic product they've put out since Graham's recruits graduated (That 8-5 team that lost to 4 top 25 teams was the most talented in TU history, with excellent o-line depth but Blankenship couldn't even get 1 upset win and lost another they shouldn't have). I'll check back in 5 years after the next coach gets axed for going 2-10 five straight seasons to see how the fan base on here grows.

Neat.

 

[tupatsfan]

Go back to the way it was in the early 90s? TU had 1 year at 10-2 and the next best was a 6-6 year and the rest were around 4-7 to 3-8 and the stadium was really empty most games. Those seasons are better than now and it was awesome having so many TU alumni in the NFL, but that wasn't a great era and people on this thread mentioned the Rader era as especially painful.

TU was great in the 50s and at times in the 60s and 70s and obviously good in the late 2000s to early 2010s when TU had lowered academic standards for athletes and created sports degrees for them. I don't see TU suddenly figuring out some new ground breaking way to get Tulsans to care about TU football again.

Did anyone on here remember the nearly empty stadiums TU had to play for, even when they were undefeated? Then if TU had an early loss (like OU in 2007 or ECU in 2010), fan attendance plummeted because obviously if you lose 62-21, you must suck and casual fans and most students don't care much any more (I don't agree, but I ran into that chain of thought a lot). Then if you look at all the most well-attended games in recent history and home games vs ranked opponents, they're almost all loses (OSU, OU, UH several times, Boise St, Memphis).

TU has proven to casual fans again and again they don't win the big games and even if they do and it's an away game (like @Notre Dame), the stadium will be empty the next week anyways.The AD and admin are probably befuddled by that. TU casual fans seem to only be interested in an undefeated team and one that wins a big game. Die hards support them no matter what but that's a very small group that hasn't grown at all (see this official Tulsa board with like 10 regular users).

I like that I'm supposedly a professor because I don't see any recovery for TU football. I'm a TU football fan and I'm tired of this pathetic product they've put out since Graham's recruits graduated (That 8-5 team that lost to 4 top 25 teams was the most talented in TU history, with excellent o-line depth but Blankenship couldn't even get 1 upset win and lost another they shouldn't have). I'll check back in 5 years after the next coach gets axed for going 2-10 five straight seasons to see how the fan base on here grows.

K thx bye.

 

[Babe the Blue Ox]

I'll check back in 5 years

I hope you hold yourself to that.

We'll still be here. All 10 of us.

 

[tupatsfan]

Go back to the way it was in the early 90s? TU had 1 year at 10-2 and the next best was a 6-6 year and the rest were around 4-7 to 3-8 and the stadium was really empty most games. Those seasons are better than now and it was awesome having so many TU alumni in the NFL, but that wasn't a great era and people on this thread mentioned the Rader era as especially painful.

TU was great in the 50s and at times in the 60s and 70s and obviously good in the late 2000s to early 2010s when TU had lowered academic standards for athletes and created sports degrees for them. I don't see TU suddenly figuring out some new ground breaking way to get Tulsans to care about TU football again.

Did anyone on here remember the nearly empty stadiums TU had to play for, even when they were undefeated? Then if TU had an early loss (like OU in 2007 or ECU in 2010), fan attendance plummeted because obviously if you lose 62-21, you must suck and casual fans and most students don't care much any more (I don't agree, but I ran into that chain of thought a lot). Then if you look at all the most well-attended games in recent history and home games vs ranked opponents, they're almost all loses (OSU, OU, UH several times, Boise St, Memphis).

TU has proven to casual fans again and again they don't win the big games and even if they do and it's an away game (like @Notre Dame), the stadium will be empty the next week anyways.The AD and admin are probably befuddled by that. TU casual fans seem to only be interested in an undefeated team and one that wins a big game. Die hards support them no matter what but that's a very small group that hasn't grown at all (see this official Tulsa board with like 10 regular users).

I like that I'm supposedly a professor because I don't see any recovery for TU football. I'm a TU football fan and I'm tired of this pathetic product they've put out since Graham's recruits graduated (That 8-5 team that lost to 4 top 25 teams was the most talented in TU history, with excellent o-line depth but Blankenship couldn't even get 1 upset win and lost another they shouldn't have). I'll check back in 5 years after the next coach gets axed for going 2-10 five straight seasons to see how the fan base on here grows.

also. Fard noise.

 

[Fmr'Cane16]

That 8-5 team that lost to 4 top 25 teams was the most talented in TU history, with excellent o-line depth but Blankenship couldn't even get 1 upset win and lost another they shouldn't have). I'll check back in 5 years after the next coach gets axed for going 2-10 five straight seasons to see how the fan base on here grows.

Not to get nit picky with a goon, but in 2011 it was 4 top 10 teams. 3 of which finished the season 12-1, 12-1, 13-1. OU, pre season number 1, was the let down of the group at 10-3.

But now we should be happy we are “staying close.” Neat

 

[TheGoldenTulsas]

Not to get nit picky with a goon, but in 2011 it was 4 top 10 teams. 3 of which finished the season 12-1, 12-1, 13-1. OU, pre season number 1, was the let down of the group at 10-3.

But now we should be happy we are “staying close.” Neat

Yes I said 4 top-25 teams which was correct. OU, OSU, BSU & UH - all loses and all proof that the most talented TU team in recent history can not win against upper echelon of talent. So yes, we should be thrilled that this current roster which is a far cry from that competes with top-25 teams.

I've really rustled some jimmies on here with all 10 posters. I love how everyone blames the head coach, then they blame the AD, then they blame the admin, yet they think that somehow someway those at the top will be able to "fix" it if they just get the right guy. The same admin and AD that have gotten the athletics and academics here in the first place.

To reiterate the answer to the original question:
Can Tulsa ever be successful (more wins than losses) in D1?

No, not consistently. Maybe 2-3 times a decade, but this is the new reality and we should accept and embrace it for what it is rather than make outrageous unattainable demands.

 

[tupatsfan]

Yes I said 4 top-25 teams which was correct. OU, OSU, BSU & UH - all loses and all proof that the most talented TU team in recent history can not win against upper echelon of talent. So yes, we should be thrilled that this current roster which is a far cry from that competes with top-25 teams.

I've really rustled some jimmies on here with all 10 posters. I love how everyone blames the head coach, then they blame the AD, then they blame the admin, yet they think that somehow someway those at the top will be able to "fix" it if they just get the right guy. The same admin and AD that have gotten the athletics and academics here in the first place.

To reiterate the answer to the original question:
Can Tulsa ever be successful (more wins than losses) in D1?

No, not consistently. Maybe 2-3 times a decade, but this is the new reality and we should accept and embrace it for what it is rather than make outrageous unattainable demands.

get lost loser with that loser mentality.

 

[goldenhurricane2]

Yes I said 4 top-25 teams which was correct. OU, OSU, BSU & UH - all loses and all proof that the most talented TU team in recent history can not win against upper echelon of talent. So yes, we should be thrilled that this current roster which is a far cry from that competes with top-25 teams.

I've really rustled some jimmies on here with all 10 posters. I love how everyone blames the head coach, then they blame the AD, then they blame the admin, yet they think that somehow someway those at the top will be able to "fix" it if they just get the right guy. The same admin and AD that have gotten the athletics and academics here in the first place.

To reiterate the answer to the original question:
Can Tulsa ever be successful (more wins than losses) in D1?

No, not consistently. Maybe 2-3 times a decade, but this is the new reality and we should accept and embrace it for what it is rather than make outrageous unattainable demands.

You’re not a TU fan. You’re a grumpy person with an agenda. Your trolling is lame. Do better.

 

[Fmr'Cane16]

Yes I said 4 top-25 teams which was correct. OU, OSU, BSU & UH - all loses and all proof that the most talented TU team in recent history can not win against upper echelon of talent. So yes, we should be thrilled that this current roster which is a far cry from that competes with top-25 teams.

What a weak mentality. Spoken like someone who has never walked onto a field and competed once in their lifetime.

 

[Babe the Blue Ox]

You’re not a TU fan. You’re a grumpy person with an agenda. Your trolling is lame. Do better.

I’m voting for troll also. Notice how the username “GoldenTulsas” cleverly adds that ‘s’ at the end that we so often despise when someone adds it to Hurricanes.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I’m voting for troll also. Notice how the username “GoldenTulsas” cleverly adds that ‘s’ at the end that we so often despise when someone adds it to Hurricanes.

Might be a fan of one of our conference members.

 

[TU_BLA]

Yes I said 4 top-25 teams which was correct. OU, OSU, BSU & UH - all loses and all proof that the most talented TU team in recent history can not win against upper echelon of talent. So yes, we should be thrilled that this current roster which is a far cry from that competes with top-25 teams.

I've really rustled some jimmies on here with all 10 posters. I love how everyone blames the head coach, then they blame the AD, then they blame the admin, yet they think that somehow someway those at the top will be able to "fix" it if they just get the right guy. The same admin and AD that have gotten the athletics and academics here in the first place.

To reiterate the answer to the original question:
Can Tulsa ever be successful (more wins than losses) in D1?

No, not consistently. Maybe 2-3 times a decade, but this is the new reality and we should accept and embrace it for what it is rather than make outrageous unattainable demands.

To be fair, they were all top 10 teams when TU played them. OSU nearly went to the national championship game except for a stupid kick and finished #3 in both the coaches and AP polls. Boise State finished #6 in the coaches poll, #8 in the AP; Houston choked in the C-USA championship otherwise they would have played in a money bowl. Finished #14/#18 in the respective bowls and that was garbage. Hammered Penn State in their bowl game too. TU was 7-0 in conference going into the game against Houston to decide C-USA west.

TU can be good consistently and the AAC will be overall better for it.

 

[TheGoldenTulsas]

You’re not a TU fan. You’re a grumpy person with an agenda. Your trolling is lame. Do better.

So you're happy with how TU has been since they switched to the AAC? Or even more apty, ever since Memphis, Tulane, UH & SMU have invested heavily in the football arms race... TU has fallen far behind and there's no money in the coffers or magical donors who will bail TU out this time.

This board talks as if the admin is incompetent and somehow expects those people to improve football. How? What specifically can TU feasibly do beyond all the low-hanging fruit they got before? Indoor facility? Not an option with current revenue. New bigger/better locker room? Not an option with current revenue. The locker room was really nice when it was completed 10 years ago, but it far behind others in the AAC. How can TU bring in more fans to boost revenue? Advertise all over Tulsa? Didn't work. Go undefeated? Didn't work. Attendance is about the same regardless of how TU plays so the status quo will likely continue.

It actually makes sense that programs with large fan bases end up being better like UC, Memphis or UCF. Their students and citizens actually care about the team. It was really nice in 2005 when it seemed like the city cared about TU for a brief moment and filled the stands for some games to actually support TU. Not since then though.

 

[chito_and_leon]

So you're happy with how TU has been since they switched to the AAC? Or even more apty, ever since Memphis, Tulane, UH & SMU have invested heavily in the football arms race... TU has fallen far behind and there's no money in the coffers or magical donors who will bail TU out this time.

This board talks as if the admin is incompetent and somehow expects those people to improve football. How? What specifically can TU feasibly do beyond all the low-hanging fruit they got before? Indoor facility? Not an option with current revenue. New bigger/better locker room? Not an option with current revenue. The locker room was really nice when it was completed 10 years ago, but it far behind others in the AAC. How can TU bring in more fans to boost revenue? Advertise all over Tulsa? Didn't work. Go undefeated? Didn't work. Attendance is about the same regardless of how TU plays so the status quo will likely continue.

It actually makes sense that programs with large fan bases end up being better like UC, Memphis or UCF. Their students and citizens actually care about the team. It was really nice in 2005 when it seemed like the city cared about TU for a brief moment and filled the stands for some games to actually support TU. Not since then though.

Remember Janet, when TUPlan is up and going, enrollment will increase by 5,000 students* so there will be way more students to fill the stadium. And I can guaran-damn-tee you that admission requirements will drop WAY down. So the guys who needed special dispensation to get in for Graham will be able to get in as normal students pretty soon (at least as long as they're first generation). So everything you're complaining about will get resolved!

We don't "talk as if the admin is incompetent", the admin IS incompetent whether we talk about it or not. It's the old joke - wife walks into the room and asks her husband "honey, do these jeans make my butt look fat." Husband says "the jeans don't have anything to do with it."

* Actual results may vary significantly from the consultants' estimates, which are not typical for normal users.

 

[TU_BLA]

The locker room was really nice when it was completed 10 years ago, but it far behind others in the AAC.

Well, considering TU did a complete overhaul of the locker room in the Case Center and opened it just prior to last season, we are pretty on par with most schools in the AAC in terms of the locker room facility. It's not LSU or Texas $10M renovations and every player gets their own 25" TV at their locker stall cool, but it is pretty impressive nonetheless. Basketball's was redone about 4 years ago and is flipping sweet as well.

 

[chito_and_leon]

So you're happy with how TU has been since they switched to the AAC? Or even more apty, ever since Memphis, Tulane, UH & SMU have invested heavily in the football arms race... TU has fallen far behind and there's no money in the coffers or magical donors who will bail TU out this time.

This board talks as if the admin is incompetent and somehow expects those people to improve football. How? What specifically can TU feasibly do beyond all the low-hanging fruit they got before? Indoor facility? Not an option with current revenue. New bigger/better locker room? Not an option with current revenue. The locker room was really nice when it was completed 10 years ago, but it far behind others in the AAC. How can TU bring in more fans to boost revenue? Advertise all over Tulsa? Didn't work. Go undefeated? Didn't work. Attendance is about the same regardless of how TU plays so the status quo will likely continue.

It actually makes sense that programs with large fan bases end up being better like UC, Memphis or UCF. Their students and citizens actually care about the team. It was really nice in 2005 when it seemed like the city cared about TU for a brief moment and filled the stands for some games to actually support TU. Not since then though.

It's not rocket science - when we have a good coach, we do well regularly. When we have a bad coach, we do poorly (and even then we do well sometimes). The key difference isn't all the stuff you're crying and moaning about, it's much simpler - coach. And coach is picked by administration (and given long contracts by admin). If you get competent people in the admin, we'll spend more time with good coaches and will do better more often (and lessen the economic problems coming from the academic side). You're throwing up smokescreens because you desperately want to protect Monty and the admin but we're not that dumb.

 

[goldenhurricane2]

So you're happy with how TU has been since they switched to the AAC? Or even more apty, ever since Memphis, Tulane, UH & SMU have invested heavily in the football arms race... TU has fallen far behind and there's no money in the coffers or magical donors who will bail TU out this time.

This board talks as if the admin is incompetent and somehow expects those people to improve football. How? What specifically can TU feasibly do beyond all the low-hanging fruit they got before? Indoor facility? Not an option with current revenue. New bigger/better locker room? Not an option with current revenue. The locker room was really nice when it was completed 10 years ago, but it far behind others in the AAC. How can TU bring in more fans to boost revenue? Advertise all over Tulsa? Didn't work. Go undefeated? Didn't work. Attendance is about the same regardless of how TU plays so the status quo will likely continue.

It actually makes sense that programs with large fan bases end up being better like UC, Memphis or UCF. Their students and citizens actually care about the team. It was really nice in 2005 when it seemed like the city cared about TU for a brief moment and filled the stands for some games to actually support TU. Not since then though.

of course I’m not happy with the results on the field. No one is. But that’s a LONG way from shutting down the program.

The bs you’re spewing are all things I’ve heard at faculty senate meetings... there is a vocal population of staff that detest sports (specifically football) and they use the same tired/weak/defeatist points you have.

And for the record. The locker rooms have been updated and they are quite nice. Maybe get a clue before you start throwing crap against the wall hoping it sticks.

 

[goldenhurricane2]

Further... by the talking points the professor has provided, it would then make sense for TU to shut down completely. Since we’ve fallen a little behind in the US News ranking behind our peers from Tulane and SMU.

How will be ever catch up??? Our academic prowess has been permanently compromised! Might as well go ahead and shut it down and turn 11th and Harvard into a landfill.

Sounds stupid huh?

Will TU ever be Alabama, Oklahoma, Norte Dame, or Ohio state? Nope we sure won’t. Can TU compete for conference championships, bowl games, and provide fun and exciting football? Yes we can. We’ve seen it done before and we’ll see it done again.

With the amount of revenue TU is now receiving from media rights via the AAC, the athletic department is more lucrative than it has ever been (by far).

 

[TU_BLA]

With the amount of revenue TU is now receiving from media rights via the AAC, the athletic department is more lucrative than it has ever been (by far).

And we need to see that money reinvested into the athletic dept. vs being used to subsidize the rest of the university. OK passed the lottery bill as supplemental education funding. The OkLeg started taking some of the money it allocated each year for education and tried to let the lottery income be the sole funding source. Sure they gave corporations big tax breaks and such...but the funding for schools kept falling.

I hope TU doesn't use this model. They need to keep the university's budget allocations and funding at near equal levels to now and let the athletic dept. use that additional revenue to provide the needed resources (equipment, personnel, etc.) for TU's teams to compete at the highest level possible. If TU does that they will see that $7M from the AAC expand their revenue base on campus from even the slightest increases in student enrollment numbers.

 

[TheGoldenTulsas]

It's not rocket science - when we have a good coach, we do well regularly. When we have a bad coach, we do poorly (and even then we do well sometimes). The key difference isn't all the stuff you're crying and moaning about, it's much simpler - coach. And coach is picked by administration (and given long contracts by admin). If you get competent people in the admin, we'll spend more time with good coaches and will do better more often (and lessen the economic problems coming from the academic side). You're throwing up smokescreens because you desperately want to protect Monty and the admin but we're not that dumb.

So you're saying wave the "magic wand***" and hire a new coach now and that'll fix it? There have been 4 different coaches since 2005. Kragthorpe had 1 good year and 1 mediocre/bad year. Graham had 3 good years and 1 mediocre year. Blankenship had 2 good years and 2 bad. Mont had 1 good year, 1 mediocre and 2-3 bad unless he basically wins out. Before that it was almost all bad for a while. That's not a great track record of good seasons. Monty's offense was the hot thing at the time in 2015 and transformed the team. This board was ecstatic after 2016 and were thrilled when he was extended through 2022 (https://tulsa.forums.rivals.com/threads/montgomerys-new-5-year-deal.13341/) so good luck getting TU to fire him and pay a massive buyout and have money left over for a decent replacement.

I'm not defending the admin. If I was defending the admin, I'd trust them to find someone better than Monty. They won't. They'll be lucky to find someone who can even match those results in 5 seasons. I'd be thrilled if they can but the reality is even a program like Texas with all of its advantages struggles over a decade to find a good coach. Imagine how much more difficult that is for TU. You need guys like Malzahn/Morris/Graham who know they can use TU to rise up the ranks, but that's a rough sale after the last 2 got fired and couldn't ever muster a better class than 85th (10th in the conference).

If Montgomery is a bad coach and his tactics are so bad as so many claim on here, why did the same people claim his tactics were great in 2016 (and even excuse the close losses after 2017)?

After 2016:

Monty runs what is currently the best offensive system in college football. A system which is very QB friendly. I've never seen a QB fail under it.

I believe President will win the starting job! I feel like in Monty's offense he just adds another addition to our already dangerous offense..

After 2017:

I agree with this... we could very easily be 6-6 right now instead of 2-10. Not that 6-6 would be something to wet yourself with joy about, but it would be an acceptable ending to a rebuilding year.

(discussing 2018 schedule when some posters warn UCA might be close, with all the faith in the world in Monty's ability here, still dismissing certain users he doesn't like for adding facts to the discussion):

Good God. I won't comment on why I'm not surprised which posters are saying this will be close.

We will absolutely ROLL Central Arkansas. GTFO. Yes, yes it is a gimme. Look at our 2-10 record and how many of those games were close or could have been wins? Exactly. UCA will be a cakewalk.

(TU came from behind in the 4th to beat UCA 38-27)

After 2018, the tide turned but those who mentioned the reality (this is the new reality of the conference and TU can't afford a new coach or to compete) were dismissed or called trolls:

I agree.......I really want things to improve but The problem, competent QB or not, we will not be better than Cincinnati, USF, Tulane, Houston, or UCF because they have all been able to recruit better and have better coaches.

TU not only needs a new coach better than Monty, but one much better than other AAC schools who already have good/great coaches.

*** (I really like this one from chito, especially in contrast to the message I'm replying to that the problem "it's much simpler - coach"):

Firing Monty with Gragg still here and no plan to upgrade, and having to commit to a new guy for 4 years has a lot of “magic wand***” steps. It sounds good on a message board when you’ve never had to make real decisions or run real operations but it’s laughably naive for those of us who actually know how to build and run organizations.

It's hard to convince the entire campus community an IPF project and raising $30+M for it is worth it when you've laid off a ton of people in the last 2 years, budgets are frozen and you have to write an essay to get personnel replaced or even office supplies, or heaven forbid, a more expensive piece of equipment or computer programming that you know will enhance the lives of current students, faculty, and/or staff.

Skelly became Chapman when TU issued bonds to pay for it. The donations you speak of were not even half of the cost of the renovations. TU is having trouble generating revenue to pay down those bonds (and other projects as well) without impacting current programming. That is why you are seeing salary reductions, retirements, etc. We bought a stadium on our credit card. Now we have to pay the balance off after we got demoted at our job.

However, You are correct that winning will help with small and mid tier donations.

I think everyone is missing the point when it comes to TU Sports.

Coaching and the AD isn't the problem, not having the fan base to give the University the sports revenue to compete in major college football is. You can be successful in basketball because you really only need a few high-quality players to win consistently and you can do it with 15 scholarships (relatively inexpensive to comply with Title IX). This is why you have 63% more NCAA Basketball programs (347) than football programs (129).

Having to be in compliance with Title IX and considering all the OSU and OU in-city grads churned out every year, TU must put a consistent (yearly) championship-contending football team on the field to draw fans. OSU hasn't done crap in football but they have a fan base that would keep them in money even without Pickens. Tulsa could win the BCS and still wouldn't be able to draw away Poke-a-Dopes because it is their alma mater.

In short, the University of Tulsa needs more students and since the name recognition has shrunk over the years it will take drastic measures to get that to happen. Drop the tuition drastically, remove faculty, drop the numbered for degree programs, offer online degrees (the current mint in higher education), etc.

Hopefully this clears it up for everyone on here that the issues at TU are much bigger and much worse than a new coach or even AD can fix. There's no magic wand, and "draining the swamp" might just end up with worse results without an actual actionable plan to turn it around. That plan will necessitate indoor practice facility, increase in coaching salaries, increase in athletic funding, increase in students, increase in community engagement and massive increase in attendance. If not, it'll end up right back where we are now. Or we can accept the status quo.