TU Athletic Facilities -- Say what you want about Haisten...

[HuffyCane]

Haha. Granted that does bring a giggle, but it’s not that easy.

First, buildings like that cost money and you have to put them in accessible and convenient locations in such a way they comply with federal and state laws. There arent many options for that and all add to the cost of construction that pushes the cost of the project up a lot farther than the advocates of the IPF want to discuss.

Looks a little cramped for the band.

If you know how to get a multimillion dollar rowing tank in something like that without disrupting their preparations for the Henley regatta this summer in the UK, let em know. BTW, if you didn’t know the TU rowers will be going to arguably the most competitive women’s collegiate and amateur rowing competition in the world this summer and wearing some SWEET new rowing blazers afterward thanks to the generosity of a donor.

 

[TU 1978]

I understand. The logistics of such a move make it difficult to execute. It says the new IPF cannot be a cheap fiberglass roofed structure as suggested by Haisten, but a well planned facility that could contain the offices and other critical things currently in Mabee. That also says that another site other than the current Mabee footprint would need to be used. Other than the soccer practice field on the other side of Delaware or Harwell Field, there is not a lot of land available. The complexity of this issue along with the financial considerations make it understandable why it hasn’t been easily tackled before now.

 

[HuffyCane]

I understand. The logistics of such a move make it difficult to execute. It says the new IPF cannot be a cheap fiberglass roofed structure as suggested by Haisten, but a well planned facility that could contain the offices and other critical things currently in Mabee. That also says that another site other than the current Mabee footprint would need to be used. Other than the soccer practice field on the other side of Delaware or Harwell Field, there is not a lot of land available. The complexity of this issue along with the financial considerations make it understandable why it hasn’t been easily tackled before now.

Exactly.

 

[HuffyCane]

Is the GKFF a TU fan?

According to public records, TU has already borrowed money from GKFF for other purposes. As a result of that debt and more, an IPF isn’t a viable option right now, but could be with the new TV contract, depending on the amount.

 

[Li'l Eric Coley]

without disrupting their preparations for the Henley regatta this summer in the UK

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Yeah, it’s starting to look more and more like the disgruntled donor class is feeding these stories and because it’s slow in March, the World is willing to play along.

I don't think the World needs a slow March to justify TU humiliation. Don't Pooper scooper Haisten and Peters(breath) eat that shiite for breakfast on a fairly regular basis..

 

[astonmartin708]

I think we need to get back to the main topic of this thread... saying whatever we want about Haisten

 

[Chris Harmon]

Here is a segment on The Animal with discussion of the TU facilities...

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Yeah the University of Tulsa doesn't want to air all of their dirty laundry to help the fans and supporters to understand. Nor should they. And yes Pooper scooper will write multiple articles to give the program a bad name, obvious. That was a silly, not well thought out tweet for him to do, as a supporter. It caused damage.

 

[TU_BLA]

The state retains TU students at roughly the same rate as OU and OSU. The problem isn’t the schools, it’s the state. Oklahoma just isn’t a desired place to live, especially for young people. Even if you would stay, the business and employment realities prohibit it in many cases. That’s changing - a little.

That said, the fundamental organizing principle, at least for now, of the University is to gather and retain intellectual capital for the benefit of the city and to do so at a level of quality so that faculty and students do not view state education or other private colleges in far flung locations as viable alternatives. Towards that goal, TU is doing an adequate job but could improve.

Hence some of our struggles in trying to keep quality student athletes in Tulsa.

 

[VypeOK]

The tweet highlighted the fact that athletic facilities need a massive overhaul. Decades overdue. You can't run from it. It is what it is.

In no way does the tweet hurt any TU programs or the Athletic Department. If so, in what way?

Is it going to detour people from coming to games? No.

Is it going to hurt recruiting? If you don't think that is already happening, you are misinformed.

Now does the tweet hurt the University and the administration? Probably. But only in the sense that (Once again) highlights the massive discrepancies with athletic facilities. And if it is embarrassing, then you can be mad at it all you want, but know that the embarrassment comes from a lack of athletic support in general, not from a tweet.

Citing "dirty laundry" claims that I exposed "secrets". Well, there is no secret to what is happening with Facilities at TU.

I understand it's hard for TU admin to right the ship financially, but if the athletic department is constrained with development and improvements because of pressure from those outside athletics, then that is a University problem that I would say needs to be addressed. If optics are perceived to be negative from those outside athletics, then that is not athletics' fault.

I am all for the debate. And that is what I want. It's healthy. If anyone feels that the support for athletics from the university is in a good state, then debate it. I do not think it is. And I show facts that back it up.

If there are reasons and situations that prohibit athletics from developing, then my opinion is that the university needs to come clean on that. Otherwise, the general public perception is that "They can't raise $$$ in athletics." And that's not entirely correct. So Athletics takes the heat.

All I know is that supporters, season ticket holder, alumni, etc. are all pretty reasonable. And if there are reasons that reside at the university admin/board level that prohibit athletics, then just say so. It's understandable considering the financial issues that the university has been in. It allows supporters to join the fight and understand. Otherwise, it is a cesspool of rumors and assumptions as to why TU athletics lacks in facilities.

Optics are probably a massive part of this. The locker room deal was botched from the beginning. Then when it was completed, I would assume the university was hesitant on making it public. Hence the delay in allowing football to promote it. So retroactively some would assume that the reason the locker room was botched in the first place and put on hold for a year, was because of the fear of optics to the rest of the university. Prolong and delay as long as you can.

I am more of a transparency kind of person. Alumni and supporters are all understanding, reasonable people. Why not explain a few things. Be honest. Own it. And then it allows everyone to understand, and allows everyone pull the same rope. I'm tired of the finger pointing, tired of the blatant misinformation supporters have in regards to athletic development. No one needs to air the dirty laundry. No one needs to know the interworking and details of everything. But a simple statement or any communication from TU as a university as to why there is such reticence in allowing athletics to try and develop facilities and progress.

If you disagree with that, and think the university doesn't owe any supporters, season-ticket holders, or alumni any sort of explanation or clear vision as to what they want in athletics, then that is your stance and the debate can start. Personally I feel that more accountability is owed. Supporters of TU athletics are entitled to know what the vision for athletics is at the University level. What's the plan? Every other D1 program has a clear plan. And it is well-known to their supporters. If there is no plan at TU and the status quo will remain because of other reasons, then just say it. Own it. The truth will only help.

What's the university's vision for athletics? It's a simple question.

-Austin Chadwick

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The tweet highlighted the fact that athletic facilities need a massive overhaul. Decades overdue. You can't run from it. It is what it is.

In no way does the tweet hurt any TU programs or the Athletic Department. If so, in what way?

Is it going to detour people from coming to games? No.

Is it going to hurt recruiting? If you don't think that is already happening, you are misinformed.

Now does the tweet hurt the University and the administration? Probably. But only in the sense that (Once again) highlights the massive discrepancies with athletic facilities. And if it is embarrassing, then you can be mad at it all you want, but know that the embarrassment comes from a lack of athletic support in general, not from a tweet.

Citing "dirty laundry" claims that I exposed "secrets". Well, there is no secret to what is happening with Facilities at TU.

I understand it's hard for TU admin to right the ship financially, but if the athletic department is constrained with development and improvements because of pressure from those outside athletics, then that is a University problem that I would say needs to be addressed. If optics are perceived to be negative from those outside athletics, then that is not athletics' fault.

I am all for the debate. And that is what I want. It's healthy. If anyone feels that the support for athletics from the university is in a good state, then debate it. I do not think it is. And I show facts that back it up. Not "dirty laundry".

If there are reasons and situations that prohibit athletics from developing, then my opinion is that the university needs to come clean on that. Otherwise, the general public perception is that "They can't raise $$$ in athletics." And that's not entirely correct. So Athletics takes the heat.

All I know is that supporters, season ticket holder, alumni, etc. are all pretty reasonable. And if there are reasons that reside at the university admin/board level that prohibit athletics, then just say so. It's understandable considering the financial issues that the university has been in. It allows supporters to join the fight and understand. Otherwise, it is a cesspool of rumors and assumptions as to why TU athletics lacks in facilities.

Optics are probably a massive part of this. The locker room deal was botched from the beginning. Then when it was completed, I would assume the university was hesitant on making it public. Hence the delay in allowing football to promote it. So retroactively I assume that the reason the locker room was botched in the first place and put on hold for a year, was because of the fear of optics to the rest of the university. Prolong and delay as long as you can.

I am more of a transparency kind of person. Alumni and supporters are all understandable people. Why not explain a few things. Be honest. Own it. And then it allows everyone to understand, and allows everyone pull the same rope. I'm tired of the finger pointing, tired of the blatant misinformation supporters have in regards to athletic development. No one needs to air the dirty laundry. No one needs to know the interworking and details of everything. But a simple statement or any communication from TU as a university as to why there is such reticence in allowing athletics to try and develop facilities and progress.

If you disagree with that, and think the university doesn't owe any supporters, season-ticket holders, or alumni any sort of explanation or clear vision as to what they want in athletics, then that is your stance and the debate can start. Personally I feel that more accountability is owed. Supporters of TU athletics are entitled to know what the vision for athletics is at the University level. What's the plan. Every other D1 program has a clear plan. And it is well-known to their supporters. That's my argument.

When I said dirty laundry I wasn't referring to the tweet. I was referring to all the problems the University is having paying off loans and getting themselves out of this mess on the academic side as well as the sports program side.

I believe they would have to air a lot of that out to give the athletic supporters a solid reason why they are not going forward with things like the IPF. I don't think that is what they want or need to do right now. The academic side has major problems right now that they shouldn't be making public knowledge. It would hurt the university as a whole.

And when I said the tweet was not good, I was referring to it just being one more negative mark against TU that adds to people's misgivings about the athletic program. I know you didn't mean it that way, but the way it is received has nothing to do with what you were intending with the tweet. I know you regret that it played into the 'firestorm' that you mentioned on your show.

 

[lawpoke87]

A question which I haven't seen asked....Does anyone have a time frame as to when our current "mess" might get worked out to a point where construction of an IPF becomes realistic? It's crazy to me that my 8 year old daughter has access to better practice facilities (soccer in her case) than most of TU's athletes.

 

[HuffyCane]

A question which I haven't seen asked....Does anyone have a time frame as to when our current "mess" might get worked out to a point where construction of an IPF becomes realistic? It's crazy to me that my 8 year old daughter has access to better practice facilities (soccer in her case) than most of TU's athletes.

I haven’t seen the books personally, but talk regularly with several different folks who do, while working in a variety of paid and unpaid roles. I’ve heard most of the short term “red zone” type pressure should be off by June 30 2021 if donor and proceeds income remains constant and projected enrollment increases are realized. As you can see in the public financial, tax, and audit statements I’ve linked to on the General Board, theres bond debt, including the bonds on the stadium, that are gonna be around a little while longer than 2021 at least. But we should have made a pretty big dent by then

As for retiring all existing bond debt, it’s doesnt appear feasible to me within the next ten years, given current income and expenses. But that’s just my spit ball guess. And even then, ten years from now, those apartments will need significant capital expenditures to refurbish, so it’s back into debt.

The school’s long term financial stability won’t be resolved until 2030 when the financial crisis baby bubble finally comes of age. At that point, TU will know whether there will be enough kids enrolling in college to keep the school as we know it vibrant.

 

[TUMU]

The tweet highlighted the fact that athletic facilities need a massive overhaul. Decades overdue. You can't run from it. It is what it is.

In no way does the tweet hurt any TU programs or the Athletic Department. If so, in what way?

Is it going to detour people from coming to games? No.

Is it going to hurt recruiting? If you don't think that is already happening, you are misinformed.

Now does the tweet hurt the University and the administration? Probably. But only in the sense that (Once again) highlights the massive discrepancies with athletic facilities. And if it is embarrassing, then you can be mad at it all you want, but know that the embarrassment comes from a lack of athletic support in general, not from a tweet.

Citing "dirty laundry" claims that I exposed "secrets". Well, there is no secret to what is happening with Facilities at TU.

I understand it's hard for TU admin to right the ship financially, but if the athletic department is constrained with development and improvements because of pressure from those outside athletics, then that is a University problem that I would say needs to be addressed. If optics are perceived to be negative from those outside athletics, then that is not athletics' fault.

I am all for the debate. And that is what I want. It's healthy. If anyone feels that the support for athletics from the university is in a good state, then debate it. I do not think it is. And I show facts that back it up.

If there are reasons and situations that prohibit athletics from developing, then my opinion is that the university needs to come clean on that. Otherwise, the general public perception is that "They can't raise $$$ in athletics." And that's not entirely correct. So Athletics takes the heat.

All I know is that supporters, season ticket holder, alumni, etc. are all pretty reasonable. And if there are reasons that reside at the university admin/board level that prohibit athletics, then just say so. It's understandable considering the financial issues that the university has been in. It allows supporters to join the fight and understand. Otherwise, it is a cesspool of rumors and assumptions as to why TU athletics lacks in facilities.

Optics are probably a massive part of this. The locker room deal was botched from the beginning. Then when it was completed, I would assume the university was hesitant on making it public. Hence the delay in allowing football to promote it. So retroactively some would assume that the reason the locker room was botched in the first place and put on hold for a year, was because of the fear of optics to the rest of the university. Prolong and delay as long as you can.

I am more of a transparency kind of person. Alumni and supporters are all understanding, reasonable people. Why not explain a few things. Be honest. Own it. And then it allows everyone to understand, and allows everyone pull the same rope. I'm tired of the finger pointing, tired of the blatant misinformation supporters have in regards to athletic development. No one needs to air the dirty laundry. No one needs to know the interworking and details of everything. But a simple statement or any communication from TU as a university as to why there is such reticence in allowing athletics to try and develop facilities and progress.

If you disagree with that, and think the university doesn't owe any supporters, season-ticket holders, or alumni any sort of explanation or clear vision as to what they want in athletics, then that is your stance and the debate can start. Personally I feel that more accountability is owed. Supporters of TU athletics are entitled to know what the vision for athletics is at the University level. What's the plan? Every other D1 program has a clear plan. And it is well-known to their supporters. If there is no plan at TU and the status quo will remain because of other reasons, then just say it. Own it. The truth will only help.

What's the university's vision for athletics? It's a simple question.

-Austin Chadwick

Your passion for TU and TU sports, is very evident and real. I have spoke to you a couple of times. If I remember correctly, you began your TU football career as a Grey Shirt.Thanks for what you do to help TU.

I have no ties to TU, other than being a fan.

I have two wishes for TU sports, outside of championships. An Indoor Practice Facility, will happen sometime. Men's Baseball, lol.

 

[HuffyCane]

Your passion for TU and TU sports, is very evident and real. I have spoke to you a couple of times. If I remember correctly, you were a Grey Shirt initially. Thanks for what you do to help TU.

I have no ties to TU, other than being a fan.

I have two wishes for TU sports, outside of championships. An Indoor Practice Facility, will happen sometime. Men's Baseball, lol.

$6.5 million will get you baseball next season. Just need a donor.

 

[TUMU]

$6.5 million will get you baseball next season. Just need a donor.

Lol. Right now, seems like TU would say, No Thanks.

 

[HuffyCane]

I believe they would have to air a lot of that out to give the athletic supporters a solid reason why they are not going forward with things like the IPF. I don't think that is what they want or need to do right now. The academic side has major problems right now that they shouldn't be making public knowledge. It would hurt the university as a whole.

This x100. I know a lot of you guys don’t like what I post, and that I’ve been pretty negative lately, and I go into full throttle hate mode on all the ex Baylor people associated with our program, but believe this paragraph above. It’s the absolute truth. That’s all you’ll get out of me on that on here.

 

[HuffyCane]

Lol. Right now, seems like TU would say, No Thanks.

Exactly. Being sarcastic. But that’s the figure we were quoted in a room full of checkbooks that could have made that number. No takers.

 

[Tulsa_]

$6.5 million will get you baseball next season. Just need a donor.

Can't be right.... i have a very good source that told me it was going to take 10 million just to get Men's golf back.

 

[HuffyCane]

The tweet highlighted the fact that athletic facilities need a massive overhaul. Decades overdue. You can't run from it. It is what it is.

In no way does the tweet hurt any TU programs or the Athletic Department. If so, in what way?

Is it going to detour people from coming to games? No.

Is it going to hurt recruiting? If you don't think that is already happening, you are misinformed.

Now does the tweet hurt the University and the administration? Probably. But only in the sense that (Once again) highlights the massive discrepancies with athletic facilities. And if it is embarrassing, then you can be mad at it all you want, but know that the embarrassment comes from a lack of athletic support in general, not from a tweet.

Citing "dirty laundry" claims that I exposed "secrets". Well, there is no secret to what is happening with Facilities at TU.

I understand it's hard for TU admin to right the ship financially, but if the athletic department is constrained with development and improvements because of pressure from those outside athletics, then that is a University problem that I would say needs to be addressed. If optics are perceived to be negative from those outside athletics, then that is not athletics' fault.

I am all for the debate. And that is what I want. It's healthy. If anyone feels that the support for athletics from the university is in a good state, then debate it. I do not think it is. And I show facts that back it up.

If there are reasons and situations that prohibit athletics from developing, then my opinion is that the university needs to come clean on that. Otherwise, the general public perception is that "They can't raise $$$ in athletics." And that's not entirely correct. So Athletics takes the heat.

All I know is that supporters, season ticket holder, alumni, etc. are all pretty reasonable. And if there are reasons that reside at the university admin/board level that prohibit athletics, then just say so. It's understandable considering the financial issues that the university has been in. It allows supporters to join the fight and understand. Otherwise, it is a cesspool of rumors and assumptions as to why TU athletics lacks in facilities.

Optics are probably a massive part of this. The locker room deal was botched from the beginning. Then when it was completed, I would assume the university was hesitant on making it public. Hence the delay in allowing football to promote it. So retroactively some would assume that the reason the locker room was botched in the first place and put on hold for a year, was because of the fear of optics to the rest of the university. Prolong and delay as long as you can.

I am more of a transparency kind of person. Alumni and supporters are all understanding, reasonable people. Why not explain a few things. Be honest. Own it. And then it allows everyone to understand, and allows everyone pull the same rope. I'm tired of the finger pointing, tired of the blatant misinformation supporters have in regards to athletic development. No one needs to air the dirty laundry. No one needs to know the interworking and details of everything. But a simple statement or any communication from TU as a university as to why there is such reticence in allowing athletics to try and develop facilities and progress.

If you disagree with that, and think the university doesn't owe any supporters, season-ticket holders, or alumni any sort of explanation or clear vision as to what they want in athletics, then that is your stance and the debate can start. Personally I feel that more accountability is owed. Supporters of TU athletics are entitled to know what the vision for athletics is at the University level. What's the plan? Every other D1 program has a clear plan. And it is well-known to their supporters. If there is no plan at TU and the status quo will remain because of other reasons, then just say it. Own it. The truth will only help.

What's the university's vision for athletics? It's a simple question.

-Austin Chadwick

Austin, thanks for the kind words about message board posters on your show, even if you weren’t including me, lol.

Please allow me to respond to one of your points and make a suggestion.

You asked what’s the plan? The University has posted a strategic plan for athletics on the athletic department website. I’ve linked it below. It is due to expire in June 2019. It was drafted by Dr. Gragg just after arrival on campus and approved during Stead 2.0. It includes the intent to construct a multi-sport practice facility.

The current leadership has updated a strategic vision for TU on the academic website. It mentions expanding university operations and building facilities, but does not mention athletics.

You have a mic. You have a voice. You need content. Invite TU athletics leadership on your show to review the old strategic plan, where you can assess their performance and achievement in a candid way, and discuss the contents of the plan for the next five years which presumably will be coming soon. If they won’t come, point out that they were invited, conduct your assessment anyway, and tell us what you think should be in the plan. Better yet, invite Jerry, Trent, and a few others to share their thoughts and give A through F style grades for all the things TU athletics said they were going to do these past five years.

You have the ability to be the most articulate sports pundit in Oklahoma since the legendary Bill Connors. You currently have a unique insight as a still relatively young former student athlete who is capable of mature and reasoned arguments who remembers what it was like to use the current facilities FIFTEEN years ago or in the case of Dre, THIRTY.

Use your bully pulpit. Don’t just start debate with a hasty tweet. Use your time and venue to build reasoned discussions that result in constructive dialog.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.si...s_Strategic_Plan_Final_APPROVED_10_15_14_.pdf

 

[HuffyCane]

Can't be right.... i have a very good source that told me it was going to take 10 million just to get Men's golf back.

This was during the Bubba era so there’s inflation I guess. And TU needs the money. Wouldn’t surprise me if they quoted a price recently that was cost+

 

[VypeOK]

Austin, thanks for the kind words about message board posters on your show, even if you weren’t including me, lol.

Please allow me to respond to one of your points and make a suggestion.

You asked what’s the plan? The University has posted a strategic plan for athletics on the athletic department website. I’ve linked it below. It is due to expire in June 2019. It was drafted by Dr. Gragg just after arrival on campus and approved during Stead 2.0. It includes the intent to construct a multi-sport practice facility.

The current leadership has updated a strategic vision for TU on the academic website. It mentions expanding university operations and building facilities, but does not mention athletics.

You have a mic. You have a voice. You need content. Invite TU athletics leadership on your show to review the old strategic plan, where you can assess their performance and achievement in a candid way, and discuss the contents of the plan for the next five years which presumably will be coming soon. If they won’t come, point out that they were invited, conduct your assessment anyway, and tell us what you think should be in the plan. Better yet, invite Jerry, Trent, and a few others to share their thoughts and give A through F style grades for all the things TU athletics said they were going to do these past five years.

You have the ability to be the most articulate sports pundit in Oklahoma since the legendary Bill Connors. You currently have a unique insight as a still relatively young former student athlete who is capable of mature and reasoned arguments who remembers what it was like to use the current facilities FIFTEEN years ago or in the case of Dre, THIRTY.

Use your bully pulpit. Don’t just start debate with a hasty tweet. Use your time and venue to build reasoned discussions that result in constructive dialog.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.si...s_Strategic_Plan_Final_APPROVED_10_15_14_.pdf

Thank you for the kind words and encouragement. The last thing I would do is compromise and jeopardize the university in parts or as a whole. And the content here can be very useful.

You mentioned Gragg’s vision is still posted to the website. But at this point, it means nothing on the development side of things. It doesn’t matter what his vision is. If there is a massive reluctance (for whatever reason) the admin has towards any sort of development in athletics. That is why I asked for the university administration’s vision. Because only their’s matters.

Discussion is good. Debate is even better. And the university that we all Love needs to be ready for the next 20 years. I’m not worried about what happened in the past. I’m not worried about who’s fault it was. I simply want to encourage our leadership to fix it. The quicker that happens, the better. Clancy has challenges. Everyone understands that. If he can take them head on, and reach his goals, then he will have the cred to be a terrific president. Respected by all. And not afraid to take issues on. Especially those in athletics that we care so much about.

 

[TU Man]

A few years ago, I had a situation where we were trying to assist a troubled teen at church and no matter who we spoke with, they said “the system is broken and can’t help right now”. Like twenty different folks we spoke with. and they WERE THE SYSTEM!

This is the same thing. We have a football coach making good money, a basketball coach making much more than we’ve ever paid one, an athletic director who wants to climb the food chain, and TU internal execs who are paid quite nicely...and we have heard zero from any of them about fixing a system that is broken. How about a little freaking leadership. Are we going to try to change this broken system or not?

 

[HuffyCane]

Exactly. And the first step in that process is trust, as you point out. The current leadership is not the university just as any one coach or player is the program. People come and go, the university will hopefully endure and remain. We have to trust what the leadership is saying to commit our time, passion, and hopefully money to the program.

When we are not given reliable information, or worse when we are told one thing and something different or nothing is done, that trust breaks down. And in 99% of the cases, this is why we have seen the slow retreat in booster support.

We had leadership in Stead to envision, and skill in Bubba to implement, exactly what they were saying, but what we weren’t told was the external costs in those decisions or how it could cripple other parts of the parts of the university to accomplish. Even when we got what we wanted, when we finally felt TU was finally going to pay to get things done and actually find competent people to get it done, we weren’t told what was really going to happen. My name is on that stadium in small print. I’m starting to regret being part of something that may take 20 years or more to pay off. I’m not alone, though we all we quite pleased with the result and knew it involved tough decisions. Some of us I’ve talked to, myself included, have walked back continuing donations that aid unnecessary expenses for fluff academic projects until the debt situation is resolved. In light of the recent departure of very capable athletic department professionals, including two in GHC, I’m keeping my donor level the same until that program stabilizes.

That’s why what was promised five years ago is important. Not to play a game of gotcha or belittle individual professionals, but to point out that the program itself appears to be driven for the past twenty years by a succession of personalities, rather than a clear plan of agreement by all stakeholders that survives leadership transition. Realistically, that type of document is simply not going to happen, but it’s a conversation that needs to occur because Dr. Clancy has posted very personalized documents on his strategic vision for the university and there isn’t a single word about athletics or how it indirectly benefits the non student-athletes individually or the school as a whole.

So you want to see the plan. At this point, what is the use of a plan if it is not followed or is incomplete? Why does it even matter, unless there is external accountability for the University? How will TU avoid the same leadership whim driven mistakes without at least some public discussion on the future of the program? Who is going to do it? Who has the platform, but also the courage and skill to conduct the productive discussion without alienating the TU leadership or as you say “get phone calls” from Collins Hall? How could that discussion be anymore damaging than the publicity surrounding salary cuts and op-ed articles from the Board of Trustees that clearly forecasts zero based budgeting and the closure of multiple academic programs?

A productive discussion of knowledgeable and passionate people on why the past plan was not fulfilled and what can be done to build on the successes in the plan could be productive, if handled correctly. You can be that steward.

I’m not suggesting and I don’t think anyone wants a Hoosiers-style town meeting where the townsfolk are unfair and unreasonable towards the administration.

But I do think you can intelligently speak for 5 to 7 minutes about what you want to see in the plan and why a frank discussion about campus dynamics and a clearly written plan is important to the thousands of folks that make TU sports a big part of their lives and children’s lives.

I think that is what you were trying to articulate (along with a little steam) the other day.

At the very least, read the document I linked, go on line and read the Clancy vision, it will take 20 minutes. Then synthesize what you see with what you believe TU needs to be doing. Your opinion and leadership matters too much to be silenced. As a former journalist I know access is golden, but this topic can be handled with thought and care in such a way that your future access will not be threatened.

 

[HuffyCane]

A few years ago, I had a situation where we were trying to assist a troubled teen at church and no matter who we spoke with, they said “the system is broken and can’t help right now”. Like twenty different folks we spoke with. and they WERE THE SYSTEM!

This is the same thing. We have a football coach making good money, a basketball coach making much more than we’ve ever paid one, an athletic director who wants to climb the food chain, and TU internal execs who are paid quite nicely...and we have heard zero from any of them about fixing a system that is broken. How about a little freaking leadership. Are we going to try to change this broken system or not?

You got my vote Congressman. Clancy is making less than Stead, the AD and coaches all took high profile hair cuts and there is still a bloated bureaucracy beneath them, particularly on the academic side. There are people in leadership making two and three times what they were making 15 years ago doing the same jobs and who have never raised a dime or taught a student in that time period. Where else on earth is that permitted to occur?

The current leader of “the system” is a former law professor with no formal training in organizational or business management and virtually no experience outside of working at TU and adding to their personal portfolio. The newly hired General Counsel is in her early thirties, been a lawyer less than ten years and only has an Ivy League degree and about 4 years of experience doing a portion of university legal issues, when they advertised for no less than 8 years of employment litigation experience, which she has none and general counsel experience in a leadership role, which she has none. the national average for a GC of a national university with our budget is over ten years of experience as a general counsel in a previous role at the date of hire. Most persons in the position have 20+ years of experience. What kind of organization with a budget of over $100 million yearly permits the hire of someone so young to such a place of risk and responsibilities? I get giving young people a break and hiring them at lower prices to do communications, fundraising, diversity outreach, etc. Things like University accreditation and federal funding compliance is not something you trust the inexperienced with and no outside law firm or consulting group can competently provide those services economically. If they can’t afford to hire someone who presents less risk to the University, then cut the ties and salaries mentioned above.

It’s hard to take seriously promises of spending cuts, fundraising plans, and compliance reform, when your chief compliance and risk officer has zilch experience to rely upon when rendering opinions on compliance requirements and risk, the provost has never been a provost before, (both hired after big dollar “national” searches supposedly turned up nothing ) and the President, while an expeceptionally kind, capable and thoughtful man, also has limited experience fundraising.

 

[TU 1978]

This thread is really depressing on so many levels.

First, I find it disturbing that we are experiencing such financial issues and that the alumni have been misled about what we had believed to have been paid for already (for example, the stadium). How can the administration build trust with donors when there has been a lack of, or deceptive communication in the past?

Second, this is a time when competent people are needed in critical positions and it would be incumbent on Clancy to start cleaning house of folks who are not suited for their current role and the ‘bloated bureaucracy’ should be cut. It happens all the time in business and it needs to happen here as well.

 

[HuffyCane]

This thread is really depressing on so many levels.

First, I find it disturbing that we are experiencing such financial issues and that the alumni have been misled about what we had believed to have been paid for already (for example, the stadium). How can the administration build trust with donors when there has been a lack of, or deceptive communication in the past?

Second, this is a time when competent people are needed in critical positions and it would be incumbent on Clancy to start cleaning house of folks who are not suited for their current role and the ‘bloated bureaucracy’ should be cut. It happens all the time in business and it needs to happen here as well.

Hard times is hard, brother. It’s important to be honest and stick together.

 

[GOTULSA]

I skimmed the athletic plan and this ain't one...it is a bunch of nonsense.

A good business plan not only has a vision, which this one appears to have, but must have strategic goals to achieve the vision. In addition you must be able to measure how well you have done in achieving your strategies, goals, and vision. The plan must be flexible as the environment changes.

In addition you need a gold standard to measure your vision against. Finally you need a budget. TU may have done all this, but since we are a private university, we will never know.

A good business plan is not easy to achieve, they are time consuming, takes a very good leader, and teamwork and corroboration are
critical.

 

[HuffyCane]

I skimmed the athletic plan and this ain't one...it is a bunch of nonsense.

A good business plan not only has a vision, which this one appears to have, but must have strategic goals to achieve the vision. In addition you must be able to measure how well you have done in achieving your strategies, goals, and vision. The plan must be flexible as the environment changes.

In addition you need a gold standard to measure your vision against. Finally you need a budget. TU may have done all this, but since we are a private university, we will never know.

A good business plan is not easy to achieve, they are time consuming, takes a very good leader, and teamwork and corroboration are
critical.

Dude, don’t even get me started on how much the form of that document fails. Not a word on verifying performance of measured goals, nothing on incentives to perform/cost cut, nothing on planned replacement of existing resources, etc. Half of it isn’t even a strategy, it’s just people spewing back their core job functions.

You are right times 100, but there’s enough in the content/substance to keep us occupied all day long.

 

[TU4ever2]

$6.5 million will get you baseball next season. Just need a donor.

No it won't. If we can't get the money to build an ipf because of financial reasons even with it covered in full by a donation or get a locker room because of optics how in the hell will we get a brand new sport and the title IX issues covered?

This is the problem and the number one reason why the AD needs to go.

I'm done with speculation on this. I don't want to hear about dirty laundry. If the school wants buy in from the every day joe in Tulsa, then they had better start trying to communicate what is going on.

This entire past three years reminds me of the Largent fiasco and makes his continued negative outlook on TU totally understandable. Tulsa wants all the advantages but doesn't want any of the dirty part that comes with it. You can not keep your cake and eat it too.

Austin is right in this case, this discussion needs to be had. An AD who was smart with good PR instincts would be out in front of this leading the discussion where the department needs it to go, not again letting the media run off to where ever they want to with it. Something he also did with the coaches salary cuts.

I am continually reminded of the saying 'those who say it can't be done; should never interrupt those who are doing it.'

There is entirely too much "No it can't be done" in the school and its supporters right now. No where near enough "Its going to be hard, but this is how we do it."

Hell 90% of people are clueless as to where we are, where we are going, and what we are trying to do along the way. That is never a good position to be in.

Tulsa is only hamstringing themselves and at this point I hope it all blows up. You can't fix a problem if you won't acknowledge it is a problem.

 

[TU4ever2]

Austin, thanks for the kind words about message board posters on your show, even if you weren’t including me, lol.

Please allow me to respond to one of your points and make a suggestion.

You asked what’s the plan? The University has posted a strategic plan for athletics on the athletic department website. I’ve linked it below. It is due to expire in June 2019. It was drafted by Dr. Gragg just after arrival on campus and approved during Stead 2.0. It includes the intent to construct a multi-sport practice facility.

The current leadership has updated a strategic vision for TU on the academic website. It mentions expanding university operations and building facilities, but does not mention athletics.

You have a mic. You have a voice. You need content. Invite TU athletics leadership on your show to review the old strategic plan, where you can assess their performance and achievement in a candid way, and discuss the contents of the plan for the next five years which presumably will be coming soon. If they won’t come, point out that they were invited, conduct your assessment anyway, and tell us what you think should be in the plan. Better yet, invite Jerry, Trent, and a few others to share their thoughts and give A through F style grades for all the things TU athletics said they were going to do these past five years.

You have the ability to be the most articulate sports pundit in Oklahoma since the legendary Bill Connors. You currently have a unique insight as a still relatively young former student athlete who is capable of mature and reasoned arguments who remembers what it was like to use the current facilities FIFTEEN years ago or in the case of Dre, THIRTY.

Use your bully pulpit. Don’t just start debate with a hasty tweet. Use your time and venue to build reasoned discussions that result in constructive dialog.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.si...s_Strategic_Plan_Final_APPROVED_10_15_14_.pdf

Not to knock what you said. But why isn't the administration and Gragg going out of their way to do this? Why are we depending on a journalist to control the story? It's clearly a story and gaining legs. So either get in front and have some ability to control where it goes, or hold on and hope you don't end up some place you would really would rather not be.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

No it won't. If we can't get the money to build an ipf because of financial reasons even with it covered in full by a donation or get a locker room because of optics how in the hell will we get a brand new sport and the title IX issues covered?

This is the problem and the number one reason why the AD needs to go.

I'm done with speculation on this. I don't want to hear about dirty laundry. If the school wants buy in from the every day joe in Tulsa, then they had better start trying to communicate what is going on.

This entire past three years reminds me of the Largent fiasco and makes his continued negative outlook on TU totally understandable. Tulsa wants all the advantages but doesn't want any of the dirty part that comes with it. You can not keep your cake and eat it too.

Austin is right in this case, this discussion needs to be had. An AD who was smart with good PR instincts would be out in front of this leading the discussion where the department needs it to go, not again letting the media run off to where ever they want to with it. Something he also did with the coaches salary cuts.

I am continually reminded of the saying 'those who say it can't be done; should never interrupt those who are doing it.'

There is entirely too much "No it can't be done" in the school and its supporters right now. No where near enough "Its going to be hard, but this is how we do it."

Hell 90% of people are clueless as to where we are, where we are going, and what we are trying to do along the way. That is never a good position to be in.

Tulsa is only hamstringing themselves and at this point I hope it all blows up. You can't fix a problem if you won't acknowledge it is a problem.

Bitter much? Go back to the conference board, I like it when you stay there. You get lost in the shuffle there, so you should too. And while you are at it, take originaltufan with you. He likely doesn't have a home here, for now.

 

[TU4ever2]

Oh gmoney. You add sooooooo much.

Do you enjoy TU athletics? If you do you might want to pay attention to what former players, alumni, and current/former staff are saying.

I'm sure you won't though. God forbid people talk about obvious issues.

 

[TU_BLA]

You got my vote Congressman. Clancy is making less than Stead, the AD and coaches all took high profile hair cuts and there is still a bloated bureaucracy beneath them, particularly on the academic side. There are people in leadership making two and three times what they were making 15 years ago doing the same jobs and who have never raised a dime or taught a student in that time period. Where else on earth is that permitted to occur?

The current leader of “the system” is a former law professor with no formal training in organizational or business management and virtually no experience outside of working at TU and adding to their personal portfolio. The newly hired General Counsel is in her early thirties, been a lawyer less than ten years and only has an Ivy League degree and about 4 years of experience doing a portion of university legal issues, when they advertised for no less than 8 years of employment litigation experience, which she has none and general counsel experience in a leadership role, which she has none. the national average for a GC of a national university with our budget is over ten years of experience as a general counsel in a previous role at the date of hire. Most persons in the position have 20+ years of experience. What kind of organization with a budget of over $100 million yearly permits the hire of someone so young to such a place of risk and responsibilities? I get giving young people a break and hiring them at lower prices to do communications, fundraising, diversity outreach, etc. Things like University accreditation and federal funding compliance is not something you trust the inexperienced with and no outside law firm or consulting group can competently provide those services economically. If they can’t afford to hire someone who presents less risk to the University, then cut the ties and salaries mentioned above.

It’s hard to take seriously promises of spending cuts, fundraising plans, and compliance reform, when your chief compliance and risk officer has zilch experience to rely upon when rendering opinions on compliance requirements and risk, the provost has never been a provost before, (both hired after big dollar “national” searches supposedly turned up nothing ) and the President, while an expeceptionally kind, capable and thoughtful man, also has limited experience fundraising.

Huffy, some of these things are not unique to TU. All of higher education is seeing their administrative staffs and support personnel costs skyrocket...not because the need for such extra administrators is necessarily warranted, but it gives the university an opportunity to say they have dedicated personnel for this one area, and another person for this one area. The days of multi-tasking in an administration role is long past. While it's a useful recruitment tool, the addition of these specialized administrators is the primary reason for the fact that inflation in higher ed (about 1000% in the last 30 years) is the fastest growing in any area of goods and services. Additionally, universities continue to add individuals at VP levels further adding to costs. And it's not just TU. ORU has added VPs, OU was adding VP level administrators under Boren. It's happening all over the place.

Clancy pumped the breaks on the pace of growth that started under Upham. Galoogly at OU has pumped the brakes as well and has implemented a RIF. (We won't discuss ORU and what their dumb-a$$ president is doing).

As for specific TU things, I know when the new apartments were built, that was a plan that went counter to what most in Student Life advocated and was sort of a favor to Mike Case for his support of the tennis complex. Campus looks great right now and I know there was a push to create that as a way to recruit more students overall. Overall student recruitment has also been hampered in recent years because of the elimination of the Perkins Loan program by the fed gov't.

 

[TU_BLA]

No it won't. If we can't get the money to build an ipf because of financial reasons even with it covered in full by a donation or get a locker room because of optics how in the hell will we get a brand new sport and the title IX issues covered?

This is the problem and the number one reason why the AD needs to go.

I'm done with speculation on this. I don't want to hear about dirty laundry. If the school wants buy in from the every day joe in Tulsa, then they had better start trying to communicate what is going on.

This entire past three years reminds me of the Largent fiasco and makes his continued negative outlook on TU totally understandable. Tulsa wants all the advantages but doesn't want any of the dirty part that comes with it. You can not keep your cake and eat it too.

Austin is right in this case, this discussion needs to be had. An AD who was smart with good PR instincts would be out in front of this leading the discussion where the department needs it to go, not again letting the media run off to where ever they want to with it. Something he also did with the coaches salary cuts.

I am continually reminded of the saying 'those who say it can't be done; should never interrupt those who are doing it.'

There is entirely too much "No it can't be done" in the school and its supporters right now. No where near enough "Its going to be hard, but this is how we do it."

Hell 90% of people are clueless as to where we are, where we are going, and what we are trying to do along the way. That is never a good position to be in.

Tulsa is only hamstringing themselves and at this point I hope it all blows up. You can't fix a problem if you won't acknowledge it is a problem.

There isn't a Title IX issue if TU wants to add both baseball and golf. TU has plenty of women's scholarships available to offset the 14 or so that baseball and golf get COMBINED per NCAA limits. Baseball is allotted something like 9.5 scholarships per the NCAA yet there are like 30 players on the team. No one gets a full scholarship in college baseball because if they are that good then they are likely signing a contract with a MLB team. It's not the scholarship money that keeps those programs shelved right now...its the operational costs associated with it.

 

[TU_BLA]

This thread is really depressing on so many levels.

First, I find it disturbing that we are experiencing such financial issues and that the alumni have been misled about what we had believed to have been paid for already (for example, the stadium). How can the administration build trust with donors when there has been a lack of, or deceptive communication in the past?

Second, this is a time when competent people are needed in critical positions and it would be incumbent on Clancy to start cleaning house of folks who are not suited for their current role and the ‘bloated bureaucracy’ should be cut. It happens all the time in business and it needs to happen here as well.

See my post below about bloated administration. It's not just TU, it's everywhere. Problem is higher ed has a tougher time just eliminating positions.

Here's the issue: Higher ed is creating positions based on perceived need of a perceived service they think they need to offer. Once position is created, VP over that area will fight tooth and nail to hold onto it. There is massive ego involved in high level admins being able to say they supervise x number of departments and x number of employees and manage a budget of Y dollars. Towards the end of every fiscal year directors are told to spend every last dime in their budget for fear of not doing so and leaving excess tells the CFO that you don't really need that money and they will take it and reallocate it for the next FY. Budgeting cycles in higher ed are pretty cutthroat. Advice: Never find yourself on the bad side of any VP university-wide during budget season

 

[HuffyCane]

A question which I haven't seen asked....Does anyone have a time frame as to when our current "mess" might get worked out to a point where construction of an IPF becomes realistic? It's crazy to me that my 8 year old daughter has access to better practice facilities (soccer in her case) than most of TU's athletes.

I had to pull the latest audit report for an unrelated discussion, so I will link it below as a courtesy for your use.

The problem with university audit reports and financing plans is that people think the same concepts that apply to their small business management or kitchen table accounting system also apply here. They see a negative operations balance (which is alarming year to year) and high levels of debt and perceive the problem to be worse than it is. This is natural because in their real world experience they don’t have a billion dollars in the bank with restricted and unrestricted proceeds to draw from to service that debt.

So the numbers aren’t as bad as they seem to some eyes in some parts of this report, but there are still some significant concerns. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to discuss those concepts and our realities in this forum.

So I encourage you to skip the bulk of this report and focus on the debt report that begins on page 21. As you can see on page 29, TU incurred some unusual debts which need to be/have been paid off in the form of notes and mortgages. The good news is that the George Kaiser loan has been paid off, assuming no additional debt from that charity has been incurred. The loans on the property they bought, including the land to start to build the buffer along 11th street and Harvard is outstanding, but those loans are basically small change and secured by the properties.

The unsecured line of credit of $75 million with a current balance of approximately $10 million that remains outstanding. It’s on schedule to be paid off in 2021, if not sooner. Looking at the books and connecting dots, some, if not all, of the total amount borrowed appears to have been used to cover operating shortfalls in 2016-2017. Some of that shortfall might be tied to dramatic decline in enrollment at the law school. It’s unclear. But we will be out of the woods there in 2021.

The bonds are a different issue that I would prefer not to explain here. We can get together with Gold and LEC for a drink if you really want to dig in on that issue. But the short story is that nearly every school uses bond financing, bond financing isn’t in itself bad and can actually be a good thing. But TU has made some poor decisions in the past on what to bond finance, how they are secured, and what rate is being paid.

The point is they are working on righting the ship and they are doing a good job.

For the purposes of our discussion on the IPF and yes I know this is overly simplistic: if you had $10,000 in personal credit card debt (line of credit) racked up over the last year when your salary tanked in an economic downturn, and you are still borrowing on that credit card periodically to make ends meet, and you don’t know for sure what your income will be monthly for the next two years while you reposition your business, what would you say to your wife and accountant when your rich brother offers to buy you a $15,000 boat (IPF), when you know that even though the boat is free now, it will cost you $1000 a year in operating expenses or more? Plus, you don’t have an easy place to store it. You want to have a conversation with your wife like that? Nobody does. That’s where we are at until 2021. What would you say to your accountant when he asks why you are taking $15,000 gifts from family when you’ve got $10,000 in bad debt they could help with? What are you going to say to your dad, if you take the boat and start spending to use it and maintain it, if there’s an emergency and you need $5,000 from him? You want to have those conversations? Nobody does.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_audit/9976220181

 

[TU_BLA]

I had to pull the latest audit report for an unrelated discussion, so I will link it below as a courtesy for your use.

The problem with university audit reports and financing plans is that people think the same concepts that apply to their small business management or kitchen table accounting system also apply here. They see a negative operations balance (which is alarming year to year) and high levels of debt and perceive the problem to be worse than it is. This is natural because in their real world experience they don’t have a billion dollars in the bank with restricted and unrestricted proceeds to draw from to service that debt.

So the numbers aren’t as bad as they seem to some eyes in some parts of this report, but there are still some significant concerns. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to discuss those concepts and our realities in this forum.

So I encourage you to skip the bulk of this report and focus on the debt report that begins on page 21. As you can see on page 29, TU incurred some unusual debts which need to be/have been paid off in the form of notes and mortgages. The good news is that the George Kaiser loan has been paid off, assuming no additional debt from that charity has been incurred. The loans on the property they bought, including the land to start to build the buffer along 11th street and Harvard is outstanding, but those loans are basically small change and secured by the properties.

The unsecured line of credit of $75 million with a current balance of approximately $10 million that remains outstanding. It’s on schedule to be paid off in 2021, if not sooner. Looking at the books and connecting dots, some, if not all, of the total amount borrowed appears to have been used to cover operating shortfalls in 2016-2017. Some of that shortfall might be tied to dramatic decline in enrollment at the law school. It’s unclear. But we will be out of the woods there in 2021.

The bonds are a different issue that I would prefer not to explain here. We can get together with Gold and LEC for a drink if you really want to dig in on that issue. But the short story is that nearly every school uses bond financing, bond financing isn’t in itself bad and can actually be a good thing. But TU has made some poor decisions in the past on what to bond finance, how they are secured, and what rate is being paid.

The point is they are working on righting the ship and they are doing a good job.

For the purposes of our discussion on the IPF and yes I know this is overly simplistic: if you had $10,000 in personal credit card debt (line of credit) racked up over the last year when your salary tanked in an economic downturn, and you are still borrowing on that credit card periodically to make ends meet, and you don’t know for sure what your income will be monthly for the next two years while you reposition your business, what would you say to your wife and accountant when your rich brother offers to buy you a $15,000 boat (IPF), when you know that even though the boat is free now, it will cost you $1000 a year in operating expenses or more? Plus, you don’t have an easy place to store it. You want to have a conversation with your wife like that? Nobody does. That’s where we are at until 2021.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_audit/9976220181

I enjoy your insider perspective on these things. It's an interesting side to hear when you've been somewhat on the inside as an employee but know that you aren't in the "need to know" circle of info. Yeah, occasionally you will have a board member drop an interesting, albeit, not confidential or consequential, nugget on you but usually you're left out of the loop until you have info they need to move forward.

 

[TU4ever2]

There isn't a Title IX issue if TU wants to add both baseball and golf. TU has plenty of women's scholarships available to offset the 14 or so that baseball and golf get COMBINED per NCAA limits. Baseball is allotted something like 9.5 scholarships per the NCAA yet there are like 30 players on the team. No one gets a full scholarship in college baseball because if they are that good then they are likely signing a contract with a MLB team. It's not the scholarship money that keeps those programs shelved right now...its the operational costs associated with it.

Yes and you have to spend on the women what you spend on the men. Baseball is an expensive sport. Its going to add a lot to the men's side of the budget that has to be matched on for the women. I doubt that we were way over on spending on the women's side comparative to the men.

I'm not complaining. I would love to see it and have no problem spending money on the other side to meet title IX. But if perception wise we can't announce a locker upgrade? Or would have to turn down a funded ipf. No way are we adding a money loser (generally speaking) and everything else that comes with that.

Football has worked at Tulsa for almost a 120 years, so if it can't overcome perception, baseball is s.o.l.