Douglaspoke
Well-known member
Hey Cup--good to see you here! I was good at GWG, but my $$$ allocations for anything UW ath had to be trimmed back--just didn't see the ppoint anymore. I hope I am proved wrong at some future date!
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!
Fire Burman
- Thread starter McPeachy
- Start date
Fact is, others have embraced or at least reconciled with the realities of running modern athletics departments. Wyoming just can't. We can bark about our craptastic programs, but we WILL NOT compete unless we go all in on NIL. I don't make the rules/reality, but we can't and won't change them. IT is very clear that Burman, Seidel, the Legislature and many on this board hate this new era (the half-hearted, ill fated, and uncreative push for state funded NIL notwithstanding). I'm not loving it to be honest. But if we don't change our thinking, we will continue in our death spiral. In 5 years or less, we will have either elevated our NIL game and become competitive in the MWC and region or we will be bloodied and lifeless on the doorstep of FCS.
I think you are mostly right barring a major change in the way college athletes are compensated. That change is eventually coming, but it probably won't be in time to save programs like Wyoming.
The short-term reality to choosing not to heavily invest in the current NIL model is depressing. It means watching a program you love get passed up by peer institutions that we used to be on the same level with. It's painful to see. As you pointed out, it also means several years of really poor performances amongst the flagship sports (football and men's basketball).
All that being said, I still find myself leaning away from wanting Wyoming to play the NIL game. I think in the long run, I'd be happier as a fan if Wyoming were in a conference with regional like minded peer schools than I would with Wyoming being in a conference with a team in the Chicago suburbs and spending millions of dollars a year to try to field a competitive team that changes personnel year in and year out.
It would be a big change, and change is really hard to accept in the moment, but I'm starting to feel like it's ultimately for the better. I'm sure others strongly disagree with this take, but that's just my two cents.
rocket city poke
Well-known member
No me, i wholeheartedly agree. I want the legislature to pull the NIL money and make the programs go this route. The legislature will just be throwing away more money. UW just has not shown an ability to compete in the evolving world of college athletics. Another $6 million isn't going to change that.
Wyolie Coyote
Well-known member
Nothing will change no matter how we approach it with the current Athletic Director. Until Burman is gone, none of it matters. Expect the same results as we have had for 20 years under his leadership.
Burman should absolutely be fired....but the decline was already underway before he ever got the job. It was not fast but it started after Tilller left and Wyoming has never found it's footing since. From that point on...the high points got steadily lower and the low points got ugly. Burman takes over in '06 and the trajectory continues. He definitely isn't helping that trend. All this talk about NIL and how we would be happier in a regional (nationally irrelevant) conference is tough to stomach.
College sports has passed Wyoming by. There has been a seismic shift in the business side of amateur athletics and I just don't know how any single person changes what happened at UW over the last 30 years.
College sports has passed Wyoming by. There has been a seismic shift in the business side of amateur athletics and I just don't know how any single person changes what happened at UW over the last 30 years.
Last edited:
President Seidel is a lame duck president; we really just stop mentioning his name. If the next guy (or gal) comes in and makes Athletics a priority, there's a shot, but UWYO, as an institution, has a lot of other (potentially) more pressing problems.
Tom Burman is essentially the "Iron Man" of UW leadership. Since taking over as Athletics Director in 2006, he has become the longest-tenured leader at the university, outlasting nearly every senior administrator and trustee from that era. I've shared a similar sentiment earlier but I'll repeat it again...
Tom Burman is essentially the "Iron Man" of UW leadership. Since taking over as Athletics Director in 2006, he has become the longest-tenured leader at the university, outlasting nearly every senior administrator and trustee from that era. I've shared a similar sentiment earlier but I'll repeat it again...
- 8 Presidential Leaders "Survived": Burman has maintained his position through the leadership of Tom Buchanan, Robert Sternberg, Dick McGinity, Laurie Nichols, Neil Theobald (Acting), and current President Ed Seidel.
- Trustee Turnover: The Board of Trustees consists of 12 voting members serving staggered 6-year terms. Because appointments happen every two years, the entire voting membership of the board has effectively turned over three times during his tenure.
- A Growing List of Board Members: Since 2006, Burman has worked with roughly 50 to 60 different individual Trustees. Even the most "senior" current members of the Board, like Michelle Sullivan and John McKinley (both appointed in 2015), started nearly a decade after Burman was already established in the AD role.
rocket city poke
Well-known member
I blame the BOT for many of the issues -- True, McKinley, Brown, McPherson, Parmerlee, Bostrom, Neiman. They have all basically done nothing besides stand-by and watch the regression.
LanderPoke
Well-known member
Hate to say it but all the “peer” institutions that we would be dropping down into will blow by us with NIL too. Like what is a peer institution to us if we don’t embrace the new model? DIII schools ? Current FCS schools will boat race us within years of us joining them
