The on-the-spot reporter was on his way to Chuch tonight so I only got tidbits from today's interviews.
There are 10 set questions that are being asked ranging from diversity issues, retention issues, fundraising, faculty salary issues, AND Athletics, specifically as it relates to Football and the tight budget and Title IX requirements (so it's a loaded question).
I only got the updates for Cheryl Scheid, vice chancellor for Academic, Faculty and Student Affairs and dean at University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center. She faired well with the questions but our reporter seemed to think that her knowledge base was pretty limited in terms of retention and undergraduate issues since she's at a Medical Sciences campus. She did comment that in terms of faculty salaries, the expectations she'd had when she was faculty is that half her salary was there when she walked in the door and she was told she needed to go raise the rest through the sponsored funding. I'm thinking THAT is not what most faculty want to hear, although it's the truth. Nothing outstanding about her comments about Athletics.
Manahan was another that I got the tidbits on. He gave the typical "edu-speak" on his comments but he was specific about using Marshall University as his point about football, BUT he said it would be 15 years before we could play football. I don't know what he's been smoking, but he's way off base and shows me that he's very out of touch with what's going on with all the other school's that are start-up's and are moving toward FBS. At least he's got the basic concept.
There was a faculty member, not Bitter from what I understand, that said that if Manahan is named as the President there will be an immediate vote of NO CONFIDENCE by the Faculty the day after. Pretty strong words.
The Chancellor of the TBR seems to be totally unimpressed so far and his attention seems to be directed at one of the four electonic devices he seems to twittle with constantly. I guess he's addicted to Angry Birds too.
Noland goes tomorrow. I may get the scoop on the other two that went today but no promises. I'll try to update after tomorrow's sessions. I asked Doc to take notes for me! Not sure that will happen.
(10-19-2011 06:43 PM)ReturnOfMommaBear Wrote: [ -> ]Manahan .... said it would be 15 years before we could play football.
So cross him off the list of football supporters then. Wow.
15 years is a bit much, but realistically it will be 5-7 years even if the new President is very motivated to bring football back. This will not happen overnight.
(10-19-2011 07:36 PM)ETSUfan1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-19-2011 06:43 PM)ReturnOfMommaBear Wrote: [ -> ]Manahan .... said it would be 15 years before we could play football.
So cross him off the list of football supporters then. Wow.
Yes I agree. That is unacceptable. The next president can make it happen as soon as he
wants to happen. I know it cannot be a year but the foundation can be laid in a year.
there was only one candidate out of todays session that has a chance at being the next president. Robert Frank had a very, very strong interview.
Manahan has too much of a "we can't" attitude. Cross him off and put his ass out to pasture.
(10-20-2011 10:14 AM)Buccaneerlover Wrote: [ -> ]Manahan has too much of a "we can't" attitude. Cross him off and put his ass out to pasture.
Yes that is exactly what we have now and need to get rid of.
(10-19-2011 08:30 PM)slappywhite Wrote: [ -> ]there was only one candidate out of todays session that has a chance at being the next president. Robert Frank had a very, very strong interview.
Frank had a good showing and seems to be the "favorite" from the faculty side of things. Sounds like he's got some support in the community as well. He addressed Athletics with a very knowledgable stance. He's definitely one to watch.
Hopefully he learned some things at Florida and took notes about 'what not to do' at Kent. They are terrible.
I'm glad to hear Frank did really well. Sounds like he understands what athletics do for a university.
That is not what Dr. Manahan said. He said 3-5 years. I was there. He said that it took Marshall 10-15 years to completely rebuild their program successfully after what had happened, and he is right! He is a huge Football supporter! And look at how much money he raised for the Foundation, don't you think he could do that for football too?
(10-20-2011 10:14 AM)Buccaneerlover Wrote: [ -> ]Manahan has too much of a "we can't" attitude. Cross him off and put his ass out to pasture.
How can someone with a "we can't" attitude take a negative $243,000 fund balance and turn it into $98 million?
(10-20-2011 04:14 PM)lovethebucs Wrote: [ -> ]That is not what Dr. Manahan said. He said 3-5 years. I was there. He said that it took Marshall 10-15 years to completely rebuild their program successfully after what had happened, and he is right! He is a huge Football supporter! And look at how much money he raised for the Foundation, don't you think he could do that for football too?
Thanks for clarifying that, I did think that sounded a bit out of touch. I'll make sure Doc knows that and is updated.
Marshall is a terrible comparison in terms of reinstating a football program. The comparisons should really be with South Alabama, Ga. State, and now Charlotte and Kennesaw. Marshall's team was killed in a plane crash and they faced issues and obstacles that aren't even imaginable to most people. Putting ETSU football back in place will be easy compared to what Marshall endured.
By the way, putting ETSU football back in place WILL BE EASY. You have no idea how easy this will be with the right people OUT of the WAY!
LET'S DO IT!!!
(10-20-2011 04:18 PM)lovethebucs Wrote: [ -> ] (10-20-2011 10:14 AM)Buccaneerlover Wrote: [ -> ]Manahan has too much of a "we can't" attitude. Cross him off and put his ass out to pasture.
How can someone with a "we can't" attitude take a negative $243,000 fund balance and turn it into $98 million?
Here's a quick question on that balance, and I really don't know the answer. How much of that Foundation money is "sponsored funding," endowed lines of funding, planned/deferred giving, and good fluid cash?? I do know in the past that a large amount of the annual 'giving' was from sponsored funding to professors/departments/programs.
Perhaps one of the good Doctor's has a ball park idea.
Then if that's the case maybe he doesn't need a trip to the retirement community, but we'll see.
Any word on the interviews today?
Top 3 have been picked. Frank, Noland, Patterson-Randles. Frank and Patterson-Randles have at least worked through the ranks. Noland has never worked on a university campus. In fact, Noland is not even qualifed. 85% of faculty voted 'no' on Noland to reach the final 4. Frank is clearly the best qualified of these three, but somehow, I think they'll select Noland, and ETSU will be in dire trouble. How Ronald Brown (Provost @ Wayne State) or Michael Wartell (17 years of experience at President of IPFW) didn't make the final 3 (it was supposed to be 4) is beyond me.
http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Living/a...p?id=95183
Noland seems to be getting pushed to the top of the list for no apparent reason other than connections. Except and until I hear reasons why the man SHOULD be President (that don't include UTK) I will remain skeptical.
Frank and Patterson-Randles seem to be the most qualified though I haven't heard anything specific where athletics is concerned.
frank and noland are the only candidates for the position. paterson-randals is just there. the others mentioned in the final 8 pale in comparison to these two. frank is a strong candidate but noland can take us places...trust me
Brown proposed faculty pay being converted to performance based instead of across the board raises. This isnt high school and simply wont work in a college atmosphere- I would anticipate over 75% of faculty to consider that a nonstarter.
Noland's stregths seem to be college retention rates- which is an increasingly important issue considering the stupid decision by the TN government to tie funding to retention.
Overall I am very pleased with the final 3- I would be ok with any of them. They are certainly the best out of the candidate pool (though I think the pool was particularly weak).
(10-20-2011 08:41 PM)slappywhite Wrote: [ -> ]frank and noland are the only candidates for the position. paterson-randals is just there. the others mentioned in the final 8 pale in comparison to these two. frank is a strong candidate but noland can take us places...trust me
Its going to take more than you just telling me to trusts you to sway my opinion. Why should I believe in Noland, what evidence is there to support his candidacy?
Being a good public speaker is not enough.