THIS is classic Burman

[HiCountryCowboy]

Burman's had his chances.

Why should we ignore the past 10 years of jack shit at the POSSIBILITY of a CHANCE of a good year sometime in the next half decade?

I'd bet this guy could get it done within 3...

Gene Taylor: http://www.gobison.com/mobile/staff.aspx?staff=63" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why do so many accept such shit?

 

[BackHarlowRoad]

Burman's had his chances.

Why should we ignore the past 10 years of jack shit at the POSSIBILITY of a CHANCE of a good year sometime in the next half decade?

I'd bet this guy could get it done within 3...

Gene Taylor: http://www.gobison.com/mobile/staff.aspx?staff=63" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why do so many accept such shit?

There's only been one hire that we all knew wasn't good, and it ended up being terrible. The rest we thought were fantastic at the time of the hire. Hindsight is 20/20.

The upgrades to our facilities have kept coming year after year after year.

With the bad, there is good. Most of us ignore it.
On the other hand....with the good, there is bad. None of us ignore that.

If Shyatt keeps trending and we finally have a disaster-free year in basketball and if Bohl delivers in what we all think is a great start....these threads will disappear.

On second thought, they probably won't.

 

[Wyokie]

On second thought, they probably won't.

I'm convinced that even if Wyoming goes 14-0 and wins the National Title, there's still going to be bitching on this board about it.

 

[HiCountryCowboy]

On second thought, they probably won't.

I'm convinced that even if Wyoming goes 14-0 and wins the National Title, there's still going to be bitching on this board about it.

That's the thing, though. UW hasn't managed to sniff a MWC championship in anything since 2002 and some mention that if we went 14-0....

I know what you're trying to say, but the buck stops at Burman.

 

[BackHarlowRoad]

I know what you're trying to say, but the buck stops at Burman.

and the guy before that, and the guy before that....

...and the guy after that, and the guy after that.

 

[NowherePoke]

Burman's had his chances.

Why should we ignore the past 10 years of jack shit at the POSSIBILITY of a CHANCE of a good year sometime in the next half decade?

I'd bet this guy could get it done within 3...

Gene Taylor: http://www.gobison.com/mobile/staff.aspx?staff=63" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why do so many accept such shit?

There's only been one hire that we all knew wasn't good, and it ended up being terrible. The rest we thought were fantastic at the time of the hire. Hindsight is 20/20.

The upgrades to our facilities have kept coming year after year after year.

With the bad, there is good. Most of us ignore it.
On the other hand....with the good, there is bad. None of us ignore that.

If Shyatt keeps trending and we finally have a disaster-free year in basketball and if Bohl delivers in what we all think is a great start....these threads will disappear.

On second thought, they probably won't.

Well, a couple of comments:

1. Most collegiate coaching hires look good on paper, that's why they were hired. Hiring someone that looks like a quality candidate should not be considered sufficient performance from the athletic director position. In terms of the hire that most of us were disappointed in at the beginning, that should be a no tolerance type of situation. There is no other school in the MWC that would have done something like that in a revenue sport. It's unbelievable.

2. In terms of good/bad. Show me the good. UW is the least successful athletic program in the MWC and Tom Burman has been the athletic director for 8 years. If we had a football coach that finished last every year for 8 years, don't you think there would be a consensus that the individual should be fired? Yet, year after year after year we fail to win a single MWC title in any sport. Teams join the MWC and win more titles in their first semester than we have won in a decade. How in the world is that acceptable?

3. There is really no reason, other than standard fandom, to have optimism for the football program right now. DC left a husk of a program. 5-7 is very misleading. By more nuanced quantitative measures factoring in SOS and MOV that was the worst Wyoming team since Vic Koenning. This isn't a quick turnaround and we didn't impress anybody on the recruiting trail (nor should we have expected to do so, considering the situation). Doesn't mean Bohl won't win, but there is no real reason to expect that he will.

4. In terms of Shyatt, he is simply a quality coach and we know that, but you make your own luck and the fact that we can't withstand an injury (or off-court issue) while programs like UNM can are a direct result of talented depth. It isn't just the basketball gods punishing us for hiring Heath Schroyer. Anyway, Shyatt is a quality hire but not of sufficient quality or achievement to offset the other failures Burman has presided over. JMO.

 

[Wyovanian]

Burman's had his chances.

Why should we ignore the past 10 years of jack shit at the POSSIBILITY of a CHANCE of a good year sometime in the next half decade?

I'd bet this guy could get it done within 3...

Gene Taylor: http://www.gobison.com/mobile/staff.aspx?staff=63" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why do so many accept such shit?

There's only been one hire that we all knew wasn't good, and it ended up being terrible. The rest we thought were fantastic at the time of the hire. Hindsight is 20/20.

The upgrades to our facilities have kept coming year after year after year.

With the bad, there is good. Most of us ignore it.
On the other hand....with the good, there is bad. None of us ignore that.

If Shyatt keeps trending and we finally have a disaster-free year in basketball and if Bohl delivers in what we all think is a great start....these threads will disappear.

On second thought, they probably won't.

The facilities upgrades were not Burman's idea, nor is the money that's behind them mostly his doing. It's like giving Bush and Clinton credit for winning the Cold War.

IMO, the most telling part of Burman's lack of real vision is the dismal record of our school in the MWC across the board. Couple that with a booster program that's mired in inactivity (with facilities upgrades casting a very long shadow- this is the AD's greatest opportunity for off-the-field/ court improvement) and you've got a pretty clear picture of someone who's more interested in max weight than the reps that actually have impact.

Most executives' operating guidance is rooted in an 80/20 base rule (80% of results come from 20% of efforts) with a goal of decreasing the ratio. Burman seems to lean more towards a 80/10 rule while maintaining the leveraged nature of a dangerously skewed operational POV.

 

[Wyolie Coyote]

Pssst...hey guys, I think Burman has a profile on here. His name is Tweaked. hahahaha

Or Visor Hair.

 

[CowboyNV]

Burman's had his chances.

Why should we ignore the past 10 years of jack shit at the POSSIBILITY of a CHANCE of a good year sometime in the next half decade?

I'd bet this guy could get it done within 3...

Gene Taylor: http://www.gobison.com/mobile/staff.aspx?staff=63" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why do so many accept such shit?

There's only been one hire that we all knew wasn't good, and it ended up being terrible. The rest we thought were fantastic at the time of the hire. Hindsight is 20/20.

The upgrades to our facilities have kept coming year after year after year.

With the bad, there is good. Most of us ignore it.
On the other hand....with the good, there is bad. None of us ignore that.

If Shyatt keeps trending and we finally have a disaster-free year in basketball and if Bohl delivers in what we all think is a great start....these threads will disappear.

On second thought, they probably won't.

The facilities upgrades were not Burman's idea, nor is the money that's behind them mostly his doing. It's like giving Bush and Clinton credit for winning the Cold War.

IMO, the most telling part of Burman's lack of real vision is the dismal record of our school in the MWC across the board. Couple that with a booster program that's mired in inactivity (with facilities upgrades casting a very long shadow- this is the AD's greatest opportunity for off-the-field/ court improvement) and you've got a pretty clear picture of someone who's more interested in max weight than the reps that actually have impact.

Most executives' operating guidance is rooted in an 80/20 base rule (80% of results come from 20% of efforts) with a goal of decreasing the ratio. Burman seems to lean more towards a 80/10 rule while maintaining the leveraged nature of a dangerously skewed operational POV.

Perfectly stated. In the corporate world, Burman would have been given his walking papers a long time ago.

 

[Wyolie Coyote]

Burman is an able AD, with a passion for UW sports and an understanding of the unique challenges and opportunities afforded at UW. In short, he's in a tough situation--but at each decision moment, he has made calls that at the time looked pretty damn good. The didn't all work out. That's the reality of heading a sports program in a rural state. But based on the information and people available at the time, good calls, every f'in one of them.

When the outcomes are not what are desired in DI sports programs, of course, there will be many calling for the AD's head to roll--I get that. But it is short-sighted. Just as there are those calling for his head, though, recognize that there are also those of us who can see bright prospects ahead for both men's football and basketball. With Burman at the helm, I am pretty optimistic about the next four years, which I predict will consist of upper third-tier conference finishes for both sports and a MWC championship in one of them. Mark my word. Wanna bet a whiskey? Have some vision dammit; and don't be blind to the process unfolding right in front of your eyes . Go Pokes.

Four reasons that Burman should be gone:
1. The hiring of Heath Schroyer. Overlooked quality candidates to get his buddy. Shyatt was interested then but ignored.

2. The extension given to Schroyer. Once again taking care of his buddy after buying our way into the CBI.

3. The extension given to Dave Christensen. Got bamboozled into an over the top raise for CDC based on total rumor of Houston interest in interviewing CDC. Houston was not serious about CDC but it sold that way by CDC reps. Hook, line and sinker.

4. MWC Titles = Zero under Burman's guidance. If I am doing Burman's annual appraisal in the corporate world, this single factor leads to his termination. Results have to be achieved and they have not been.

Facilities are great but the upgrades that have been done were planned long before Burman became the AD. He has followed thru with those plans and maybe had a hand in the fundraising but regardless, none of these improvements have yielded a trophy.

 

[BackHarlowRoad]

np

 

[BackHarlowRoad]

That's exactly what I'm saying. We point to Burman for EVERYTHING that goes wrong in our athletic department. That's fine, he's the boss, that makes sense. Then we turn around and give him zero credit for any of the decent things (upgrades, shyatt, potentially bohl) and say it was someone else's doing. I'm not a fan of that logic, that's all. How can we say the upgrades were someone else's idea and Burman had nothing to do with it and then say that Burman was 100% responsible for an underachieving football team? Seems flawed to me.

I couldn't care less if Burman gets canned, I'm not defending the guy, but what if we didn't extend CDC's contract after beating Fresno in the NM Bowl and winning MWC Coach of the Year and lost him to a different school? We would've went into full-scale riot mode. Don't lie to me and tell me you would have been happy with it. I'd be impressed to see someone calling for CDC's head after that year on this board, hire that guy.

 

[Wyolie Coyote]

That's exactly what I'm saying. We point to Burman for EVERYTHING that goes wrong in our athletic department. That's fine, he's the boss, that makes sense. Then we turn around and give him zero credit for any of the decent things (upgrades, shyatt, potentially bohl) and say it was someone else's doing. I'm not a fan of that logic, that's all. How can we say the upgrades were someone else's idea and Burman had nothing to do with it and then say that Burman was 100% responsible for an underachieving football team? Seems flawed to me.

I couldn't care less if Burman gets canned, I'm not defending the guy, but what if we didn't extend CDC's contract after beating Fresno in the NM Bowl and winning MWC Coach of the Year and lost him to a different school? We would've went into full-scale riot mode. Don't lie to me and tell me you would have been happy with it. I'd be impressed to see someone calling for CDC's head after that year on this board, hire that guy.

The point is that nobody was courting CDC, Houston was a smokescreen. We did not need to extend him until someone actually called and asked for permission to interview him.
As for facilities, they are part of a long-range 10 year plan. So no I don't think Burman came up with any of them on his own. But like I said he has secured the funding the accomplish the upgrades.
And yes Burman is responsible for everything in the athletic department. No different than a CEO or President of any corporation in the country.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

That's exactly what I'm saying. We point to Burman for EVERYTHING that goes wrong in our athletic department. That's fine, he's the boss, that makes sense. Then we turn around and give him zero credit for any of the decent things (upgrades, shyatt, potentially bohl) and say it was someone else's doing. I'm not a fan of that logic, that's all. How can we say the upgrades were someone else's idea and Burman had nothing to do with it and then say that Burman was 100% responsible for an underachieving football team? Seems flawed to me.

I couldn't care less if Burman gets canned, I'm not defending the guy, but what if we didn't extend CDC's contract after beating Fresno in the NM Bowl and winning MWC Coach of the Year and lost him to a different school? We would've went into full-scale riot mode. Don't lie to me and tell me you would have been happy with it. I'd be impressed to see someone calling for CDC's head after that year on this board, hire that guy.

The point is that nobody was courting CDC, Houston was a smokescreen. We did not need to extend him until someone actually called and asked for permission to interview him.
As for facilities, they are part of a long-range 10 year plan. So no I don't think Burman came up with any of them on his own. But like I said he has secured the funding the accomplish the upgrades.
And yes Burman is responsible for everything in the athletic department. No different than a CEO or President of any corporation in the country.

True, but that isn't a good precedent to set. If your coach does well, you want to reward him in the hopes that your loyalty will entice him to stay longer than he may have thought he would. If you wait to extend until you HAVE to, then he's more likely to jump ship when the chance comes; he figures if they aren't that eager to keep me, why should I be so eager to stay.

 

[McPeachy]

There is so much more to this leadership & administration, than what is being thrown out there in this thread.

It isn't just about McClain, Schroyer, or Shyatt; Glenn, DC, or Bohl; Moore, Sanchez, or Cuadrado; Stangle, Yerty, or Callihan. It is much more than all of that. It isn't just about the IPF, Wildcatter, RAC, MPG, Jonah Field, Indoor Tennis Complex, etc., all of which were planned and funded prior to this administration. It is much more than all of that. The stuff & names above are the surface stuff that anyone can see. Again, there is so much more than just that.

 

[BackHarlowRoad]

There is so much more to this leadership & administration, than what is being thrown out there in this thread.

It isn't just about McClain, Schroyer, or Shyatt; Glenn, DC, or Bohl; Moore, Sanchez, or Cuadrado; Stangle, Yerty, or Callihan. It is much more than all of that. It isn't just about the IPF, Wildcatter, RAC, MPG, Jonah Field, Indoor Tennis Complex, etc., all of which were planned and funded prior to this administration. It is much more than all of that. The stuff & names above are the surface stuff that anyone can see. Again, there is so much more than just that.

Let's dig deeper then. Let's talk grades and marketing and all that other fun stuff.

 

[Wyolie Coyote]

There is so much more to this leadership & administration, than what is being thrown out there in this thread.

It isn't just about McClain, Schroyer, or Shyatt; Glenn, DC, or Bohl; Moore, Sanchez, or Cuadrado; Stangle, Yerty, or Callihan. It is much more than all of that. It isn't just about the IPF, Wildcatter, RAC, MPG, Jonah Field, Indoor Tennis Complex, etc., all of which were planned and funded prior to this administration. It is much more than all of that. The stuff & names above are the surface stuff that anyone can see. Again, there is so much more than just that.

Let's dig deeper then. Let's talk grades and marketing and all that other fun stuff.

Would you like to start with the grades for the basketball team? Should we start with the resources that were afforded Schroyer but were not made available to the previous coach?
As for marketing, it sucks period.

 

[wyopig]

Wyoming provides extensions because they can't afford "high" coaching salaries. While it's difficult to attract and retain top coaching talent with the salaries we can afford, at least we can offer a level of job security. Sometimes the buyout is a little steep, but it's not an annual liability that the University can't afford.

 

[McPeachy]

There is so much more to this leadership & administration, than what is being thrown out there in this thread.

It isn't just about McClain, Schroyer, or Shyatt; Glenn, DC, or Bohl; Moore, Sanchez, or Cuadrado; Stangle, Yerty, or Callihan. It is much more than all of that. It isn't just about the IPF, Wildcatter, RAC, MPG, Jonah Field, Indoor Tennis Complex, etc., all of which were planned and funded prior to this administration. It is much more than all of that. The stuff & names above are the surface stuff that anyone can see. Again, there is so much more than just that.

Let's dig deeper then. Let's talk grades and marketing and all that other fun stuff.

No - that's ok. But there is more to it than grades and marketing as well. And it definitely isn't fun.

 

[BackHarlowRoad]

So, we're saying all that entails being an AD is way more than we know or even care to discuss, yet our measuring stick to a good one is as black and white as MWC Championships.

I understand the CEO analogy. Except CEOs and their companies can be extremely successful and NOT be #1 in their market. We're saying an AD is only ever remotely successful if they win championships and nothing else.