PonyFans.com

Just heard word of some changes in the staff. Expect something in the paper tomorrow.

Gee thanks

Any chance that Rusty Burns is gone and SMU is getting Boise State's OC?

biggest name I heard was the strength coach (Faucett (spelling?)) is gone... I forget the others, minor players.

davidsmu94 wrote:biggest name I heard was the strength coach (Faucett (spelling?)) is gone... I forget the others, minor players.

Couldn't find anything in the paper about it, but might have missed it.

got a pamphlet in the mail re a structural reorganization of athletic department into the University at large-is this what Vanderbilt did several years ago?

Vanderbilt did away with their Athletic Director position. I doubt that Orsini is pushing for that.

Yeah I thought It would make the paper today, but I guess it hit too late yesterday, or they didn't think it was big enough news.

Stallion wrote:got a pamphlet in the mail re a structural reorganization of athletic department into the University at large-is this what Vanderbilt did several years ago?

No. Basically, the regular development office is partnering with the athletic department so that athletic department employees can focus on other aspects like operations and marketing. SMU Office of Development has a lot of talented professionals that do a very good job but heretofor those talents weren't leveraged very well by athletics. The restructure puts a direct dotted line relationship between the head of Development in Athletics with a liason in the General Development Office. Some of the underlings also move over under the aegis of the development office (which helps in various ways, including budgetary).

I think some of this same talent and resource-leveraging is also happening with respect to the University PR Department so they can work more in tandem (rather than not at all or at occasional cross purposes to) the athletic marketing department.

In addition, certain academic functions under the athletic department were restructured and moved under the LEC. This one bothers me a little bit.

SMU Football Blog wrote:In addition, certain academic functions under the athletic department were restructured and moved under the LEC. This one bothers me a little bit.

Why does it bother you?

...biggest name I heard was the strength coach (Faucett (spelling?)) is gone... I forget the others, minor players.

Noticed he was removed from the web site if that is, indeed, correct.

DiamondM wrote:

Stallion wrote:got a pamphlet in the mail re a structural reorganization of athletic department into the University at large-is this what Vanderbilt did several years ago?

No. Basically, the regular development office is partnering with the athletic department so that athletic department employees can focus on other aspects like operations and marketing. SMU Office of Development has a lot of talented professionals that do a very good job but heretofor those talents weren't leveraged very well by athletics. The restructure puts a direct dotted line relationship between the head of Development in Athletics with a liason in the General Development Office. Some of the underlings also move over under the aegis of the development office (which helps in various ways, including budgetary).

I think some of this same talent and resource-leveraging is also happening with respect to the University PR Department so they can work more in tandem (rather than not at all or at occasional cross purposes to) the athletic marketing department.

Given the fund-raising focus of the 1990s, I am surprised that this didn't happen earlier. University fundraising has been a delegated function to the different areas of the university. The idea was that a specific school or office was more dialed into their alumni, and that parochial money could more readily be tapped. The downside is that a lot of the alumni who give money, particularly large donations (> $100M, that "M" means thousand for non-banking types), are on multiple lists. That can be a real drag because strategically, the university doesn't want to go back to the well repeatedly to nickle and dime someone.

Organizationally, as DiamondM suggests, this is a better alignment; the athletics staff focuses on sales and operations. Fundraising becomes a function of the top officer/s, which if they are good at what they do, is a better use of available resources . Budget-wise, the revenue line-items that come from fundraising start to look a little more coherent.

As an aside, Cox and Meadows have their own fundraising machines as well. That coherency I mentioned means that the university has a better handle on "sourced funds", meaning that the Deans can't sandbag their budgets based on alleged fundraising success as easily. But Cox and Meadows are very effective within their own schools, Meadows because of the foundation and Cox because, well, it's Cox.

As for realignment of academic function to the LEC, that has been a back and forth thing for awhile. Ostensibly, I think Blog has a point, and the worry he has (sorry to speak for you, Blog...hope you don't mind) is that the pitfalls associated with admissions will be repeated after the athletes get here, yet because the LEC is not governed by the AD, there isn't a carrot to go with the stick. I think if that is not the reason, it is a practical expectation of what could happen, and that's bullsh-t with a 100% graduation rate.

Just my 50 cents to add....

"m" designates mille, latin for thousand

m = mille
mm = mille mille (thousand thousands)

In Accounting:
m = 1,000
mm = 1,000 x 1,000 = 1,000,000

Thus:
25m = 25 thousand
25mm = 25 million

HOWEVER, when referencing currency, K = thousands, while M = millions

Hence:
$25K = 25 thousand dollars
$25M = 25 million dollars

So, Mr. Banker, you are incorrect.

[quote= to nickle and dime someone..[/quote]

In addition to that "M" thing, the good "n" word is nickel.