THE Athletic Department Thread

30,736 Views | 258 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by SFAXE93
jboy93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Location, location, location! That will always be our problem. When the basketball team beat Duke, they had to fly into Tyler and then bus it to Nac! I will remind everyone that I met them at 4 in the morning to be their welcoming committee!
I have lived in Ft Worth and Huntsville (by choice). Tarleton and Sam are growing because of their proximity to growing metroplex areas! Even here in Tyler, UTTyler is keeping students and attracting students because we are one of the fastest growing small cities in Texas and because we are not that far from Shreveport and Dallas. Those are just the facts.
Even after working at TJC for 10 years I know location is everything to attract students!
SFASawmillGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jboy93 said:

Location, location, location! That will always be our problem. When the basketball team beat Duke, they had to fly into Tyler and then bus it to Nac! I will remind everyone that I met them at 4 in the morning to be their welcoming committee!
I have lived in Ft Worth and Huntsville (by choice). Tarleton and Sam are growing because of their proximity to growing metroplex areas! Even here in Tyler, UTTyler is keeping students and attracting students because we are one of the fastest growing small cities in Texas and because we are not that far from Shreveport and Dallas. Those are just the facts.
Even after working at TJC for 10 years I know location is everything to attract students!


Hey man, I'm working on winning the lottery to open up the SFA Sawmill airport to make us more accessible.
wawwhite
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Location is a major reason some college students choose not to attend SFA or leave it after they get here. If it weren't for my family history in Nacogdoches and Garrison, I may not have chosen SFA. There is a reason Nacogdoches is jokingly called Nacanowhere. SFA, the UT system, and Nacogdoches need to think critically about it and get creative to find a solution to the enrollment issue. Both academics and athletics can play a part in solving it. It is time to look beyond the status quo. Give college-bound students a reason to want to become a Lumberjack despite the distance from home.
djsfw57
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wawwhite said:

Location is a major reason some college students choose not to attend SFA or leave it after they get here. If it weren't for my family history in Nacogdoches and Garrison, I may not have chosen SFA. There is a reason Nacogdoches is jokingly called Nacanowhere. SFA, the UT system, and Nacogdoches need to think critically about it and get creative to find a solution to the enrollment issue. Both academics and athletics can play a part in solving it. It is time to look beyond the status quo. Give college-bound students a reason to want to become a Lumberjack despite the distance from home.
You're on target with this. Funny how people can look at something and see much different things. I understand completely how people could see the location as a huge negative. For me, it was the main reason I chose to come to SFA. I loved the atmosphere, the town, the size - it was perfect for me. If I were to move back to Texas, I would move back to Nacogdoches in a heartbeat.
SFA, Class of 1979
BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jboy93 said:

Location, location, location! That will always be our problem. When the basketball team beat Duke, they had to fly into Tyler and then bus it to Nac! I will remind everyone that I met them at 4 in the morning to be their welcoming committee!
I have lived in Ft Worth and Huntsville (by choice). Tarleton and Sam are growing because of their proximity to growing metroplex areas! Even here in Tyler, UTTyler is keeping students and attracting students because we are one of the fastest growing small cities in Texas and because we are not that far from Shreveport and Dallas. Those are just the facts.
Even after working at TJC for 10 years I know location is everything to attract students!


Our location is a detriment AND a benefit. Things change. And change back again. When I enrolled (1980) SFA was booming. Why? At that time kids wanted to be away from home. Not sucking the teet, so to speak.

With the right incentives (scholarships, more competitive entrance standards, more engineering options) we can grow beyond 12,000 students and maintain our residential charm.
Axe 'Em Jacks - Class of 85'
SFASawmillGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yeah, location was actually something that attracted me to SFA. 6 hours from home. It forced me really to grow up fast. Meet people. Make friends and connections. Get involved. It's a blessing for some people.
BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFASawmillGuy said:

Yeah, location was actually something that attracted me to SFA. 6 hours from home. It forced me really to grow up fast. Meet people. Make friends and connections. Get involved. It's a blessing for some people.


I was raised in Houston, so the drive wasn't that significant. At the time it was 3-hours, as we didn't have the "loops" around Lufkin Livingston Cleveland

For me the 3-hours distance was freeing. Far enough to not have to worry about mom and dad just appearing out of nowhere. I believe that sort of attraction will come back as mores, and trends change.
Axe 'Em Jacks - Class of 85'
SFAXE93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
2 hour drive for me from Morris County, perfect distance for a quick weekend visit and laundry.
"History has no rubbish heap." Louis Blake Duff
ljax1979
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It was recently announced that Cardinal Grange will be leading our AD search. This is less than inspiring as the company was just formed in January. Their web-site lists one open position (ours). Their "Leader", Jim Nichols, has very limited experience in college athletics. He was an AD at a high school in Miami for four years and then seemed to serve in a Development role at Liberty for a few years.

Can't we do better than this?
TallTexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ljax1979 said:

It was recently announced that Cardinal Grange will be leading our AD search. This is less than inspiring as the company was just formed in January. Their web-site lists one open position (ours). Their "Leader", Jim Nichols, has very limited experience in college athletics. He was an AD at a high school in Miami for four years and then seemed to serve in a Development role at Liberty for a few years.

Can't we do better than this?


That's who UT picked to lead this?
BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ljax1979 said:

It was recently announced that Cardinal Grange will be leading our AD search. This is less than inspiring as the company was just formed in January. Their web-site lists one open position (ours). Their "Leader", Jim Nichols, has very limited experience in college athletics. He was an AD at a high school in Miami for four years and then seemed to serve in a Development role at Liberty for a few years.

Can't we do better than this?


Cardinal Grange???? Never heard of them. Let's hope they (Grange) are good enough to field a few good candidates. Imho this is a very desirable job. They do have a few "solid names" in the staff. Even if 1/2 of them are "consultants".
Axe 'Em Jacks - Class of 85'
TallTexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not quite as bad as I thought.

Consultants include:
Jim Boheim- former Syracuse coach
Tim McMurray- Old Texas A&M Commerce AD
Mike Vaught- former GCU AD, SMU & Rice assistant AD
Kelley Deyo- Former WBB coach, WNBA draft pick
Ljacks&Longnecks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
While those consultants have some credentials, I find it very odd to end up with some group that just started doing business. With all the "power and prestige" of the UT system, I would have expected the search would have been performed by SFA and the UT system working together and perhaps even a list of candidates that the UT system may have already vetted. After all, we need a "Spot on" hire to get/keep us up to par with the WAC.
Curious choice.
nacluth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've seen "experienced" search firms bring garbage candidates before. Ultimately it's on the search committee to say to any firm whether they have gotten enough high quality candidates to choose from or not. If not, they have to say, "go back and find the good candidates or we'll find another firm who can." In many cases the final bill is determined by a successful hire.
TallTexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mostly, I'd have expected UT system to have a regular firm they've worked with here.

That said, the GCU guy and the Commerce guy both have a plethora of Texas experience and experience at our level.

I don't hate it, I just find it surprising that UT wasn't like "here's the 3 we usually use."
SFAXE93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"History has no rubbish heap." Louis Blake Duff
BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nacluth said:

I've seen "experienced" search firms bring garbage candidates before. Ultimately it's on the search committee to say to any firm whether they have gotten enough high quality candidates to choose from or not. If not, they have to say, "go back and find the good candidates or we'll find another firm who can." In many cases the final bill is determined by a successful hire.


Had to really search to find "any" of these Grange people, on LinkedIn. Very little information. I would have thought at bare minimum, they (Cardinal Grange) would have a Linked In page. Being a recruitment company.
Axe 'Em Jacks - Class of 85'
BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Athletics Fee failed 53% against 47% for
Axe 'Em Jacks - Class of 85'
SFA Jack Fanatic
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigJack85 said:

Athletics Fee failed 53% against 47% for
I'm so mad I could chew nails!
SCH890
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigJack85 said:

Athletics Fee failed 53% against 47% for
Unfortunate. There has to be a way to get people to sign in to this.
nacluth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Was that two votes difference or like 200?
NacMan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigJack85 said:

Athletics Fee failed 53% against 47% for
It was kind of misnamed. It would raise $960k per year, but athletics would give $960k per year back to student services. So it was more of a student services fee disguised as an athletics fee. Fair or not, I heard some students refer to it as a "fraternity fee."

I think it probably would have passed if the $960k was going back to academic programs instead.
NacMan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nacluth said:

Was that two votes difference or like 200?
816 yes votes. 928 no votes.
wawwhite
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject matter but why call it an athletic fee if it will be given back to student services? Could the fee be redirected back to athletics in the future? I don't understand the purpose of calling it an athletic fee if it isn't used for that.
TallTexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigJack85 said:

Athletics Fee failed 53% against 47% for


Not terribly surprised given the lack of effort put into it.
SFASawmillGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Closer than it used to be. But could've easily passed if any effort was put into promoting it.
NacMan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wawwhite said:

Excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject matter but why call it an athletic fee if it will be given back to student services? Could the fee be redirected back to athletics in the future? I don't understand the purpose of calling it an athletic fee if it isn't used for that.
Currently, there is a student services fee each semester and about $960k of that gets moved to athletics to help cover the cost of athletic programs. The proposed fee would have created a dedicated $960k funding towards athletics, with the result that student services could in the future keep their $960k rather than transfer it to athletics.

Ultimately, the fee if approved would have increased the student services budget by $960k while leaving the athletics budget unchanged. As you can imagine, it was supported by the Office of Student Affairs because it would have resulted in a million dollars more funding for them.
SCH890
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NacMan said:

wawwhite said:

Excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject matter but why call it an athletic fee if it will be given back to student services? Could the fee be redirected back to athletics in the future? I don't understand the purpose of calling it an athletic fee if it isn't used for that.
Currently, there is a student services fee each semester and about $960k of that gets moved to athletics to help cover the cost of athletic programs. The proposed fee would have created a dedicated $960k funding towards athletics, with the result that student services could in the future keep their $960k rather than transfer it to athletics.

Ultimately, the fee if approved would have increased the student services budget by $960k while leaving the athletics budget unchanged. As you can imagine, it was supported by the Office of Student Affairs because it would have resulted in a million dollars more funding for them.

I think that's how it should have been advertised but it was poorly worded and also last minute of announcing it unless students were notified prior. Also it seems like we have a small voter turn out or am I missing something?
SFASawmillGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So after a short bit of twitter research, it appears many current students were spreading on social media to vote against it because they were under the impression it would take away from other student programs. They didn't seem to realize or know that voting for it would've in fact given them more money for student programs as well as helped athletics.

So it sounds to me like it was 100% poorly presented to the students who were to vote for it.
TallTexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh boy. Don't read this one if you don't want to be mad.

Fee or no fee, my biggest question is: does the Pinelog have an editor anymore?

https://www.thepinelog.com/news/article_47370354-fe8b-11ee-a75d-d7d4d9d1af60.html
AxeEm99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When you dont win, you dont get free publicity. The free publicity drives school image and pride in the institution, which in-turn drives more enrollment, which drives the whole University. The image and pride are what passes Athletic fees, NOT the other way around!!! The Pine Log writer is just stating the truth... And it is very very sad!!!

SFA has had ample opportunities to build the football program. Instead of stepping out there and hiring a proven winner, we keep the hiring carousel spinning. (I will be shocked if Carthel ever gets us past the first round or is here two years from now.) Now with the transfer portal and NIL to complicate building an awesome football program, I don't see us going anywhere anytime soon.

We have shot ourselves in the foot multiple times since I came to SFA in 1997. It's hard to recover when you make poor decisions over and over and over again!!!
Ljacks&Longnecks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It would appear that whoever was pushing this athletic fee did a poor job of explaining to the students that would have freed up money from the student services fund (not sure correct name) that would have gone to services for the whole of the student body.

I've said on this board several times....students are Not going to want to pay more money than college is already costing them. It's plain and simple economics. You can't blame them. Many are footing their own bill or their parents are and those bills are high enough.
Perhaps though, if this vote had been better promoted as a win for student services and for athletics, then it may have had a chance. Having failed again though, you will be waiting for Hell to freeze over before SFA students will ever support an athletics fee.

And stop blaming faculty, it's completely Economics 101

AxeEm99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ljacks&Longnecks said:

It would appear that whoever was pushing this athletic fee did a poor job of explaining to the students that would have freed up money from the student services fund (not sure correct name) that would have gone to services for the whole of the student body.

I've said on this board several times....students are Not going to want to pay more money than college is already costing them. It's plain and simple economics. You can't blame them. Many are footing their own bill or their parents are and those bills are high enough.
Perhaps though, if this vote had been better promoted as a win for student services and for athletics, then it may have had a chance. Having failed again though, you will be waiting for Hell to freeze over before SFA students will ever support an athletics fee.

And stop blaming faculty, it's completely Economics 101




I am willing to bet if we had a winning culture in Football every year, they would support it 90%!!!
AxeEm99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
New AD just announced. I think they had this guy chosen before the search firm was even named... Looks like a good fit for us.

https://www.texasfootball.com/article/2024/04/25/west-texas-a-m-ad-headed-to-sfa
ServiceJack88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
From his official bio on West Texas A&M

McBroom established a strategic plan for Buffalo athletics that focuses on the building and sustaining championship programs for all sports, improving the academic performance of student-athletes and developing long-standing relationships in the Texas Panhandle. Key accomplishments include:
  • 9 National Championships and more than 100 LSC and NCAA Regional Championships;
  • Nearly $100 million in new athletics facilities construction and renovations;
  • More than $40 million in gifts and external support for scholarships, facilities and team operating funds;
  • Top 10 finishes in the NCAA Division II Directors Cup every year since 2013;
  • New attendance and ticket records in every sport;
  • The first institution in the LSC to provide full scholarship funding to all women's teams;
  • A 37% improvement in the Academic Success Rate and GPAs of student-athletes.
McBroom's committee appointments include the NCAA Division II Football Committee and the NCAA Division II Men's Basketball Committee, ultimately serving as chair of each. He was also recognized as a 2015 Under Armour Division II Athletic Director of the Year.

I think we got a great one!
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.