Men's Basketball Schedule is up

The main discussion board for everything Tulane athletics related.
User avatar
JTLiuzza
Swell
Posts: 1264
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:10 pm
Status: Offline

Green Wave wrote:I would just like to add if Cowen wanted to do away with D1 football then, why did SC pic 2003 to do it? Football had just come off a winning season for the 4th time in 6 years and the Wave ended it with an upset bowl win over Hawaii. That would appear to be the worst possible time to do that.
If you're ditching D1, which was his plan, it doesn't matter when you do it. The conclusion of the "review" as announced was to "remain D1," which means by definition the "review" was to question that status.

To question that means you either weren't around then, which is understandable, or you are trying your hand at revisionist history. I've seen your posts and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.


The second commandment has not been abrogated.
User avatar
Green Wave
Swell
Posts: 2208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:44 am
Status: Offline

1ndabag wrote:
Green Wave wrote:I would just like to add if Cowen wanted to do away with D1 football then, why did SC pic 2003 to do it? Football had just come off a winning season for the 4th time in 6 years and the Wave ended it with an upset bowl win over Hawaii. That would appear to be the worst possible time to do that.
If you're ditching D1, which was his plan, it doesn't matter when you do it. The conclusion of the "review" as announced was to "remain D1," which means by definition the "review" was to question that status.

To question that means you either weren't around then, which is understandable, or you are trying your hand at revisionist history. I've seen your posts and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
No revision history is what some others on the forum do. Just like the outcome being unanimous to keep football D1 as being twisted into "oh they just did that to make it look good." You have pulled off a position that is totally dependent on hear say and then attacked me as opposed to providing evidence to support your attack. Calling for a review of football does not automatically mean the person or persons calling for the review are out to get the program yet you seem to have taken the approach that you can’t possibly question that stance. Well. Sorry but, I do.

As far as the timing of the review goes, why would you want to try and kill the program when they were successful and how on earth does that equate to support for your position? That would be like trying to fire Coach after the first winning season in almost a decade.
ROLL WAVE!
User avatar
RobertM320
Green Wave
Posts: 9887
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:18 pm
Location: Covington, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

OUG wrote:
NOLABigSteve wrote:Welcome to the board '05. I just have a hard time believing this is all just on Dickson. Cowen has a major influence on athletics.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter whether you think Cowen is part of the problem or not.

TU atletics supporters aren't getting rid of Cowen. Even at a huge athletics factory, Presidents are NEVER removed due to athletics. In fact... presidents are really never removed, period.

That's my main thinking on Cowen, the whole issue is a distraction. Cowen will be here as long as he wants. Complaining about him won't help, because he doesn't have a boss. Focusing on Cowen is like complaining about the Pope. If you want to make change, you need to pressure the Cardinal about your Bishop. And if that doesn't work, you pressure the Pope about your Cardinal.

Cowen can't and won't be fired because of athletics failures. That's a change that can't and won't happen.

Rick Dickson can and should be removed over athletics failures. THat's a change that can happen. But it won't happen, if we're too focused on Cowen being the problem. Focus on the problem you can solve.

How do we solve it? What will Cowen listen to? Not an open letter, I'll tell you that.

MONEY.

They look at the stands and think they see the sum total of Tulane athletics support.

What they need are pledges of support, real financial support, from people who don't buy tickets anymore, but will if X, Y, and Z happen.

In my opinion, this is politics 101. This is how grassroots movements are built and how they work. Target something achievable, identify a strategy to put pressure in the right places, claim victory. Consolidate your gains and tackle the next, bigger target.
OUG, you make some very sound points and seem to be the voice of reason in a sea of turmoil. I agree fully that we need to focus on what we CAN change. I agree with the pledges of support, but wouldn't it still take a main money person to get Cowen's ear? For instance, if we could find a lead donor for the OCS naming rights who would be willing to publicly annouce a willingness to fork up the $20M only if those X,Y and Z changes happened, I think that would have an impact.
Last edited by RobertM320 on Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
"That mantra is the only consistent thing that never needs to ever change for the rest of this program’s existence because that is all that matters & as long as that keeps occurring, everything will handle itself" -- Nick Anderson
User avatar
NOLABigSteve
Riptide
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:00 am
Location: New Orleans, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

RobertM320 wrote:For instance, if we could find a lead donor for the OCS naming rights who would be willing to publicly announce a willingness to fork up the $20M only if those X,Y and Z changes happened, I think that would have an impact.
Unfortunately, we don't have any of those supporters anymore.
Roll Wave!
Tulane University c/o 2003
Football Defensive End '99, '00, '01, '02
2002 Hawaii Bowl Champions
School of Engineering (Computer Science)
User avatar
JTLiuzza
Swell
Posts: 1264
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:10 pm
Status: Offline

Green Wave wrote:
1ndabag wrote:
Green Wave wrote:I would just like to add if Cowen wanted to do away with D1 football then, why did SC pic 2003 to do it? Football had just come off a winning season for the 4th time in 6 years and the Wave ended it with an upset bowl win over Hawaii. That would appear to be the worst possible time to do that.
If you're ditching D1, which was his plan, it doesn't matter when you do it. The conclusion of the "review" as announced was to "remain D1," which means by definition the "review" was to question that status.

To question that means you either weren't around then, which is understandable, or you are trying your hand at revisionist history. I've seen your posts and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
No revision history is what some others on the forum do. Just like the outcome being unanimous to keep football D1 as being twisted into "oh they just did that to make it look good." You have pulled off a position that is totally dependent on hear say and then attacked me as opposed to providing evidence to support your attack. Calling for a review of football does not automatically mean the person or persons calling for the review are out to get the program yet you seem to have taken the approach that you can’t possibly question that stance. Well. Sorry but, I do.

As far as the timing of the review goes, why would you want to try and kill the program when they were successful and how on earth does that equate to support for your position? That would be like trying to fire Coach after the first winning season in almost a decade.
I didn't attack anyone. The "review" was not a review at all. That's just how it was spun after it was exposed. It was a clandestine attempt to kill D1 football at Tulane. I can't help it if you don't understand that. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and you accuse me of attack. So be it.

When you actually "review" a business unit or a department, particularly one mired in failure, you thoroughly assess it's status, versus what you want it to be; present picture versus future/desired picture. You delineate in detail the differences, why the differences, then map out a strategy from getting from here to there. Did that happen in 2003? No. But that is exactly what we need and would be a worthy effort that wouldn't need to be done under cloak of darkness, unless of course the "future/desired" picture would cause upheaval.

Cowen started with the conclusion, i.e. we need to be DIII, and he worked backwards from there. Trouble is some good soul in the Slatten family hit the light switch thereby throwing a wrench in Cowen's plans.

That whole mess is so far in the rear view mirror now that folks who don't know anything about it are making of it what they choose. And when the facts don't support their wishlist, instead of doing a little honest research they whine about being attacked.

Difference of opinion is one thing and aok by me. This board isn't an echo chamber so sometimes you are going to hear opinions that don't jibe with yours or even ruffle you. That's what's good about this board. But not knowing the facts of a situation or flat out misrepresenting them (I tried to assume the former with you) are another matter. There is already a clique of Tulane fans who have forgotten the truth of 2003 and would like to think Cowen is all things good. This isn't it.
The second commandment has not been abrogated.
DrBox
Riptide
Posts: 3414
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Status: Offline

OUG wrote: Rick Dickson and the athletic staff that are miserably failing in their jobs (how can we see the basketball schedule as anything other than the athletics staff just totally mailing it in?) would love you to keep focusing on Cowen as the enemy, for what its worth.
Honestly, this is something Dickson should delegate down. Of course, like most weak managers, he hired a weak staff. "Mail it in" is exactly what the athletic department did with this basketball schedule.
Fred Dowler
Riptide
Posts: 4716
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:33 pm
Status: Offline

There are some very good and interesting points being raised in this thread.

I concur that President Cowen is very likely to be around for as long as he wants.

The analysis of the 2003 review was very interesting. I believe, if I remember, that there were significant cutbacks going on in various areas of the school that were being done almost from the get-go of his tenure.

So how is he going to go about cutting back on this department or that department and not have athletics at least on the table? Think about it.

I really see Cowen as a sort of a version of "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap in a college setting. Apparently toward the end of Eamon Kelly's tenure the Board felt that there needed to be some corporation-style cutbacks and cost-slashing and that Cowen was the guy to carry that out.

Look, again, at what's happened with the engineering school and Newcomb. Look at how they essentially ran Perry Clark off. Look at how they've handled salaries and hiring of all of the coaches (and when you think about that you realize what little chance there actually is BTW of Tulane hiring Rich Rodriguez) and certainly everything about the basketball program.

I suppose, yes, that it is right to conclude that his aim is not to kill athletics and that he is "agnostic"...but...he and the Board know that there's a firm limit on what they are willing to do and to spend and to allow and what that has to mean in terms of how things are likely to go on the field and on the court...and so if Div. III is a lleast-cost option given that income pretty much has a ceiling on it if you don't win games, then, sure, they find that option appealing.

If people keep on donating funds and buying tickets, then, sure, they will have no problem having Tulane stay in Div. 1. They just want the funds.

And so this is actually a very good overall analysis in pointing out that as relates to Cowen everything has to be viewed through a frame of cost. I do feel strongly that he is squeamish about Tulane going all-out to win football games as he, like the majority who are in control at Tulane -- I'm afraid that the ones who would really like to see Tulane make an effort actually proactively try to win consistently really are in a tiny minority if they are present at all within the school power structure, even if there are plenty on the outside who feel strongly for their own point of view -- are scared to death of a scandal and find the Univ. of Miami-style or Southern Cal.-style approach disgusting and repugnant but costs do mean everything to him -- and to the Board.
Last edited by Fred Dowler on Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tulane sports: small football stadium, very small basketball arena, w̶i̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶g̶r̶a̶m̶s̶, h̶o̶n̶e̶s̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶a̶b̶i̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ , but, hey, now there's tailgating.
User avatar
JTLiuzza
Swell
Posts: 1264
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:10 pm
Status: Offline

Sure Fred I understand the university not wanting to continue to subsidize a department at a certain level. But to fix that you either cut costs (reduce a 100+ year old football program to DIII status), or increase revenue (put butts in seats by winning which can be done without sacrificing institutional integrity), and in the real world it's usually a combination of both.

It's not easy to generate more revenue from the chemistry department or the library. The athletic department is a different story. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know of course but the approach to athletics is a whole different animal. It can be a means of not only revenue, but community support, political influence, and national exposure like no other department, and as such can serve the other departments.

Nobody is talking about being Miami. How about let's just be a contender in CUSA, every year, and then see where we are?
The second commandment has not been abrogated.
Fred Dowler
Riptide
Posts: 4716
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:33 pm
Status: Offline

Who's been the consistent leaders of C-USA? Houston, East Carolina, Central Fla. Tulane is about on the same page as Rice, not at all on the same page as those programs. Now those programs don't have the ammo of the Big Guys but philosophically they are clearly willing to do things to engender success on the field that Tulane is not willing to do. Clearly, also, Houston would like to win and keep on winning and growing as a program and move up as a program and into a better place than C-USA. Same with East Carolina and Central Fla. Univ. of Miami was there just like them at one time. Similar story. An obscure program that hadn't had much success, had not made a name for itself and was on the outside looking in at the circle of the then-usual suspects perennial powerhouse programs. Tulane OTOH seems to be pretty content to stay put.

The deal with C-USA, though, is that clearly here in SEC country clearly few people have much regard for it and/or interest in it. A glance at the discussion forums of Tulane sports confirms that. If Tulane is going to be content to stick with C-USA there's very little chance of the circle of regular followers ever expanding very much.

Look at the bball schedule. The team might pile up some wins but heaven knows that they had better post at least a 25-win season against that schedule if they are to have any hope of getting much attention and respect.

Ergo I am just not a believer that in the second decade of the 21st century and beyond that there's a viable middle-ground, if you do want to expand the regular following (and Cowen and Dickson probably don't have any designs on significantly doing that -- they are going to try instead to keep squeezing the alumni really hard, making use of their intermediaries who operate that other sports fan forum, to keep propping the operation up with donations, which is precisely what's so upsetting and keeps me going in my probably-futile quest to see something different done) between pushing hard to win or else folding your cards.

I suspect that some people seem to want to convince that things can all work out, that a viable middle-ground can and will be found and so on. 30-40 years ago that was possible, but in this day and age with college football being ever more like cutthroat real-world business competition -- and the NCAA quickly losing whatever control it might have once had -- it's just not going to happen any more than Lucy actually letting Charlie Brown kick the ball.
Tulane sports: small football stadium, very small basketball arena, w̶i̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶g̶r̶a̶m̶s̶, h̶o̶n̶e̶s̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶a̶b̶i̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ , but, hey, now there's tailgating.
User avatar
JTLiuzza
Swell
Posts: 1264
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:10 pm
Status: Offline

Then we should just chuck it. That seems to be your position. It's Cowen's as well.

I'm not as cynical.

I know you disagree but how about let's try to succeed as opposed to acting like college football is such a cesspool that it isn't worth playing the game?

A football program that has played since 1893 with a storied history is now at the bottom of what amounts to a bush league, by design, and there is no shortage of folks who think that we can do no better. I think we can and we should.
The second commandment has not been abrogated.
RWR
Swell
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:18 pm
Status: Offline

oug and gw you are both delusional . In 2003 SC tried ti kill it but was exposed. It was also pointed out to the idiot that if we went D-3 in football we were out of cusa which would kill all sports. The reason he didn't kill athletics in 2005 is that it was the only way to keep the Tulane brand out there. That's the reality. Get w/it.
Fred Dowler
Riptide
Posts: 4716
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:33 pm
Status: Offline

1ndabag wrote:Then we should just chuck it. That seems to be your position. It's Cowen's as well.

I'm not as cynical.

I know you disagree but how about let's try to succeed as opposed to acting like college football is such a cesspool that it isn't worth playing the game?

A football program that has played since 1893 with a storied history is now at the bottom of what amounts to a bush league, by design, and there is no shortage of folks who think that we can do no better. I think we can and we should.
Well, on that is where I agree more with the other poster.

Is Cowen out to "kill athletics?"

Not really. He'll be happy as long as the donations that enable Tulane to keep going keep on rolling in and they certainly aren't about to stop hounding alumni to keep those donations flowing (the other forum's very raison d'etre).

He just is determined to keep costs to a minimum and to avoid a scandal at all cost.

I just happen to feel strongly that maintaining athletics in some kind of compromised position does not accomplish any positive good for the school at all. We're just essentially on a treadmill going nowhere.

If Tulane really does want to try go places, then great. Let us know.

But I dare say that we all already know how far Tulane is going to be able to go doing things the way that they seem to be set on doing, especially, as I said, in the 21st century with football and basketball being more real-world competitive business-like than ever (if you don't have customers, if you aren't doing business, you don't stay in business and that's that). And there's no staying level. Either your business in this world is growing or else it's shrinking. That's just the reality of it and if Tulane is ever going to truly start to move forward as a program then all parties in the Tulane camp have got to be fully realistic as to what it's all about.

But...if they don't have the stomach for it, that's ok, too. There's a place for you, then. It's called non-scholarship.

It's just that the worst thing is trying to do exactly what they're trying to do. And it's going to go nowhere and accomplish nothing and I honestly wish that alumni would stop propping it up with donations and make Tulane make a decision and actually earn their keep or close the business down.
Tulane sports: small football stadium, very small basketball arena, w̶i̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶g̶r̶a̶m̶s̶, h̶o̶n̶e̶s̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶a̶b̶i̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ , but, hey, now there's tailgating.
User avatar
Green Wave
Swell
Posts: 2208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:44 am
Status: Offline

RWR wrote: oug and gw you are both delusional.
Nope that is your department.
RWR wrote:In 2003 SC tried ti kill it but was exposed.
Says you. Got some proof other than rumor and hear say?
RWR wrote: It was also pointed out to the idiot that if we went D-3 in football we were out of cusa which would kill all sports.
Do you have a transcript of that showing who pointed that out to him from a credible news source? Do you have any proof showing Cowen expressing his desire to move to D3?


RWR wrote: The reason he didn't kill athletics in 2005 is that it was the only way to keep the Tulane brand out there. That's the reality. Get w/it.
The review(and thats whats it was called) was held in 2003 when tulane was not "mired" neck deep in losing seasons but, fresh off a bowl victory. So the review was not held in 2005 because there was no reason to do so since the vote was ZERO to kill D1 football in 2003.

You have a conspiracy theory based on circular reasoning. Thats all you have. I wont be participating in the witch hunt. I have nothing either by shown motive or actions in the last 8 years of Scott Cowen's tenure at Tulane to move me to act in such a damaging way to Tulane University or its President.
ROLL WAVE!
User avatar
OUG
Riptide
Posts: 2935
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:59 am
Status: Offline

1ndabag wrote:
OUG wrote:I disagree that Cowen himself wants or ever wanted to kill athletics. If that was his agenda he'd have done it in '05 when he freaking nuked half the engineering school and Newcomb college. That was his chance to enforce radical change on Tulane and he took it. You'll note that we committed to remaining in 1-A, received a temporary exemption from the NCAA, and now are fielding the full complement of 16 sports. Those are the facts.

If anything, his approach his too hands off vis a vis athletics. I saw the review as an exercise in telling the fiefdoms at Tulane "you want to kill athletics to save money for your programs? Go ahead and try, we'll put it all on the table!" Purely in order to save him politically from all the backlash he was getting from forcing other fiefdoms at the university to take financial haircuts in 2002-2004. Its like what politicians do when people start insisting that social security be reformed: Establish a commission, say that everything is on the table, and let the backlash speak for itself. The events of 2005 in the wake of Katrina support my contention. He passed on his real chance to take a hatchet to TU athletics.

The idea of standing with a banner saying that you have commitments for a 5,000,000 investment in the university if Dickson is fired is only an exagerated example. The point is that money works. Money is what talked the board into keeping athletics, not anybody embarassing Cowen. You want Cowen to do something, you show him money. Boom. Done.

Otherwise, he's basically agnostic.

Rick Dickson is not managing the athletic department properly or making the right strategic decisions. He needs to be fired, and he can be.
I didn't say Cowen wanted to kill athletics. Read the post. I said he wanted to kill D1 football, and that is not in dispute. I'm not arguing with you anymore. You're a know-it-all.

Get your sign with your dollar figure and knock yourself out.
Ah, Feels like I'm back on YOGWF already.

So that's the deal here? I have a disagreement with the conventional wisdom as concerns who we assign blame to and I get personally attacked (here, and another post further down by 1ndabag)?

Also, just to point out... I am very much against the way that Tulane is running its football program right now. My only disagreement is with who is to blame for managing that situation.

Is that such a controversial position? Is it really worth people getting their tempers up over? I thought we were having a civil conversation amongst Tulane fans.
User avatar
NOLABigSteve
Riptide
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:00 am
Location: New Orleans, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

OUG wrote:Ah, Feels like I'm back on YOGWF already.
If that was the case, your posts and opinions would be the only ones not deleted.

But hey, at least we can all go back and forth and not have to worry about the words we type. :)
Roll Wave!
Tulane University c/o 2003
Football Defensive End '99, '00, '01, '02
2002 Hawaii Bowl Champions
School of Engineering (Computer Science)
User avatar
JTLiuzza
Swell
Posts: 1264
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:10 pm
Status: Offline

OUG wrote:
1ndabag wrote:
OUG wrote:I disagree that Cowen himself wants or ever wanted to kill athletics. If that was his agenda he'd have done it in '05 when he freaking nuked half the engineering school and Newcomb college. That was his chance to enforce radical change on Tulane and he took it. You'll note that we committed to remaining in 1-A, received a temporary exemption from the NCAA, and now are fielding the full complement of 16 sports. Those are the facts.

If anything, his approach his too hands off vis a vis athletics. I saw the review as an exercise in telling the fiefdoms at Tulane "you want to kill athletics to save money for your programs? Go ahead and try, we'll put it all on the table!" Purely in order to save him politically from all the backlash he was getting from forcing other fiefdoms at the university to take financial haircuts in 2002-2004. Its like what politicians do when people start insisting that social security be reformed: Establish a commission, say that everything is on the table, and let the backlash speak for itself. The events of 2005 in the wake of Katrina support my contention. He passed on his real chance to take a hatchet to TU athletics.

The idea of standing with a banner saying that you have commitments for a 5,000,000 investment in the university if Dickson is fired is only an exagerated example. The point is that money works. Money is what talked the board into keeping athletics, not anybody embarassing Cowen. You want Cowen to do something, you show him money. Boom. Done.

Otherwise, he's basically agnostic.

Rick Dickson is not managing the athletic department properly or making the right strategic decisions. He needs to be fired, and he can be.
I didn't say Cowen wanted to kill athletics. Read the post. I said he wanted to kill D1 football, and that is not in dispute. I'm not arguing with you anymore. You're a know-it-all.

Get your sign with your dollar figure and knock yourself out.
I thought we were having a civil conversation amongst Tulane fans.
We are. Sorry for the "know it all" remark.
The second commandment has not been abrogated.
jonathanjoseph
Green Wave
Posts: 9299
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:54 pm
Status: Offline

This is awesome. It's really great to have heated but thoughtful debate about Tulane athletics and this is long overdue. People are heated because they are frustrated, and rightfully so.

I have a slightly nuanced take here.

OUG is correct in that we need organized, achievable goals as opposed to a screaming mass of people all with different aims. And the direct and immediate target should be Rick Dickson (and should Tulane lose to Army tomorrow, this effort needs to begin Monday morning). Dickson's performance has been thoroughly incompetent and it's long past time Tulane alums permit this situation to continue.

But I disagree with his take on Cowen. This needs to be directed at Cowen as well for a few reasons. For starters, Cowen will throw Dickson under the bus so fast our heads will spin, so it will acheive the same results, but it's more than that.

True, no University Presidents get kicked out for underperforming athletics, even at a place like Notre Dame. But the nuance is in the degree of underperforming. This backlash is not a function of Tulane fans simply wanting more wins or more bowls, this is a backlash at incompetent management at the highest levels. You can debate the importance or role of athletics to a university, but you cannot argue the fact that it has become big business. Regardless of what numbers they release, I'd guess Tulane athletics does somewhere in the neighborhood of $5M in revenue when the median D1-A athletic department does somewhere closer to $40M and rising. In addition to his athletic policies costing Tulane tens of millions annually, the school's academic rankings have plummeted as well. Not to mention engineering and Newcomb.

So I think the backlash at Cowen is entirely justified and athletics are a symptom, not the cause itself. Athletics are merely a tangible example of what the Cowen administration has done to Tulane over a period of time and the results aren't pretty.

In your Notre Dame example, I can guarantee you that their President would lose his job if the athletic program had become a bankrupt joke AND the school's academic ranking had plummeted in parallel.

Cowen's popularity is all smoke and mirrors and PR. That's why starting to put a dent in his personal PR machine (and he does have a literal personal PR strategy) is important. This is bigger than athletics.
RWR
Swell
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:18 pm
Status: Offline

Green Wave wrote:
RWR wrote: oug and gw you are both delusional.
Nope that is your department.
RWR wrote:In 2003 SC tried ti kill it but was exposed.
Says you. Got some proof other than rumor and hear say?
RWR wrote: It was also pointed out to the idiot that if we went D-3 in football we were out of cusa which would kill all sports.
Do you have a transcript of that showing who pointed that out to him from a credible news source? Do you have any proof showing Cowen expressing his desire to move to D3?



RWR wrote: The reason he didn't kill athletics in 2005 is that it was the only way to keep the Tulane brand out there. That's the reality. Get w/it.
The review(and thats whats it was called) was held in 2003 when tulane was not "mired" neck deep in losing seasons but, fresh off a bowl victory. So the review was not held in 2005 because there was no reason to do so since the vote was ZERO to kill D1 football in 2003.

You have a conspiracy theory based on circular reasoning. Thats all you have. I wont be participating in the witch hunt. I have nothing either by shown motive or actions in the last 8 years of Scott Cowen's tenure at Tulane to move me to act in such a damaging way to Tulane University or its President.

LOL. Try to be a revisionist all you want. You're just a pathetic schill for SC. Do you get a raise every time you schill for him?
Last edited by RWR on Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DrBox
Riptide
Posts: 3414
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Status: Offline

Just to clarify one point, the "review" was instigated by Board of Trustees member Jay Lapayere. Now Cowen dutifully did Lapeyre's bidding.
Unfortunately, Lapeyre has moved on to the chairmanship (in any reasonable world, Lapayere would have been kicked off the Board after his coup d'etat failed - at Tulane, this reptile is promoted).
User avatar
tpstulane
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 26665
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:56 pm
Status: Offline

Tulane basketball lost $1.2MM according to this report in March 2010
Most people would be fired for this performance.
How do you lose $1.2MM in basketball? You schedule like we do.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/co ... /index.htm
Tulane University of Louisiana 742,597 1,937,529 (1,194,932) -160.9%
Be proactive, being reactive is for losers..
Tulane Class of 1981
Fred Dowler
Riptide
Posts: 4716
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:33 pm
Status: Offline

DrBox wrote:Just to clarify one point, the "review" was instigated by Board of Trustees member Jay Lapayere. Now Cowen dutifully did Lapeyre's bidding.
Unfortunately, Lapeyre has moved on to the chairmanship (in any reasonable world, Lapayere would have been kicked off the Board after his coup d'etat failed - at Tulane, this reptile is promoted).
Interesting point but I reiterate that my impression of Scott Cowen is that he came in the door in 1998 or so at Tulane swinging the budget-cutting axe.

Possibly, probably that was what the Board told him that he needed to do.

But it does seem to be a point of emphasis and one that everyone at the top endorsed heartily.

It also seems like that emphasis had at least something to do with what they did with regard to the engineering school and Newcomb College (the question is what special perk does Cowen enjoy with regard to the performance of the general endowment, i.e. does he receive a special bonus? Remember that Newcomb had their own independent endowment).

So...how do you go about swinging the budget-cutting axe all over campus and not have athletics on the table, at the least?

What they have done with regard to the whole management of the basketball program seems to be Case A that slashing costs/keeping them low is Priority One, period.
Tulane sports: small football stadium, very small basketball arena, w̶i̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶g̶r̶a̶m̶s̶, h̶o̶n̶e̶s̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶a̶b̶i̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ , but, hey, now there's tailgating.
Post Reply