Who directs athletic policies?

[Azdeac]

A quick perusing of the BOT list shows John McAvoy, a classmate of mine, Larry Hopkins, MD (of WFU football fame), Al Hunt, famous alumnus, and Mit Shah, a rich and influential alumnus. My guess is that the majority of the BOT are alumni. I think you're barking up the wrong tree, Loh.

And from what I hear, they all tow the company line "previous regime = bad; new regime = good"

 

[Wakelaw2006]

In the recent ACC Sports Journal article "Ron Wellman's Risky Call," it was stated that Wellman's decision to keep Buzz "has the full support of University President Nathan Hatch and the Board of Trustees, led by chair Don Flow." I have also heard that Flow's stalwart support of Buzz is backed by large donations. What got me wondering was were any of the people making decisions on Buzz Deacs themselves? Who were these people dictating what was "right" or "respectable" for the WF alums and fans of Wake sports?

I had to do some googling, but I was able to find out that:

Ron Wellman - Bowling Green
Don Flow - Univ. of Virginia
Nathan Hatch - Wheaton College

I don't know where the rest of our BOT went for undergrad -- I'd love to know -- but it seems to me that these 3 names making the news as influential in the decision-making on Buzz and our overall athletic policy don't have the critical alumni perspective on athletics and, in the case of Flow, actually have an ACC rival's perspective. Why don't we just invite tarholes to our BOT to decide whether Wake really needs to place ethics and culture far ahead of absurd concepts such as, well, winning? And I'm almost certain that we do have a hole or two on the Board...

This burns me up. Our programs, across the board, are being guided by guys that just aren't Deacs. They have no idea how it feels, as an alum, to see these repeated embarrassments on the field or court. Wellman's concepts of what is "the Wake Forest way" do not square with my own and were not formed from experience as a Wake undergrad. Neither were Flow's, nor Hatch's. Who is there in our organization to represent actual Wake Forest interests with sufficient forcefulness?

Does this rule by foreigners (or enemies) bother you as much as it does me? The strong influence wielded by a Wahoo is especially galling to me, and I don't think Flow ought to be involved at all in our athletics beyond naming rights.

Maybe it is because I feel like via this post you are asserting that you are a better fan or more deserving of having your voice heard than me because you went to undergrad at Wake, but I think this is ludicrous. I went to another ACC school for undergrad, but I'm pretty sure everyone who knows me on the boards will back me up when I say that I bleed black and gold, not garnet and gold. Don Flow is the same. I think he (along with anyone else in the athletic department or on the BoTs who supports Bz) has lost his damn mind, but it has shit to do with the fact that he went to UVa for undergrad.

 

[Lohengrin]

Maybe it is because I feel like via this post you are asserting that you are a better fan or more deserving of having your voice heard than me because you went to undergrad at Wake, but I think this is ludicrous. I went to another ACC school for undergrad, but I'm pretty sure everyone who knows me on the boards will back me up when I say that I bleed black and gold, not garnet and gold. Don Flow is the same. I think he (along with anyone else in the athletic department or on the BoTs who supports Bz) has lost his damn mind, but it has shit to do with the fact that he went to UVa for undergrad.

I hear what you're saying. But try to understand that I can't see how an alum could tolerate this shit. OTOH, were I on the BOT of UVA I'd definitely support all initiatives that hobble cavalier sports in the name of sportsmanship and "culture". I'm not saying it's impossible for a non-Wake alum to be a diehard Deac. I always support fans who didn't go to Wake. But when a non-alum/rival alum takes a position against Wake sports, it raises my hackles.

 

[TheReff]

Only Flow has "conflicted" loyalties. Wellman and Hatch just have no connection to Wake besides their job. You're being a little purposefully thick to "get" that my post suggested Wellman was trying to benefit Bowling Green. He's just adopting insane policies for Wake sports because he doesn't really feel the pain like an alum.

Before Wellman, we had Gene Hooks as AD. I was never a big fan because I was always told that he was too much of a "green eyeshade accountant" to ever promote Wake athletics effectively. But he WAS a Wake alum and he had some definite credibility there. What we're seeing now are policies that hurt Wake athletics and that's what causes me to look at the backgrounds of these people making them.

I need to explain to Loh just how great of an AD Dr. Hooks was for Wake Forest. He has been told incorrectly about him being a "green eyeshade accountant". He promoted Wake Forest athletics all he could back in those days with no money what so ever. He was getting none from the Presidents at Wake like Dr Scales and we couldn't even get a decent coliseum built until we got Dr Hearn behind the effort on our 3rd attempt.

 

[deacvision7]

No, I don't have any secret stats or inside information. You're right, I don't think it would be useful to rehash the arguments, especially being outnumbered 1 million to one. Suffice it to say that 2 years of graduate level statistics taught me that stats without context are useless. My interpretation of the context would be label me as naive, being an apologist, a shill for the AD, or worse on this board. So I'll just leave it at that.

Go on. Try us.

 

[sailordeac]

I need to explain to Loh just how great of an AD Dr. Hooks was for Wake Forest. He has been told incorrectly about him being a "green eyeshade accountant". He promoted Wake Forest athletics all he could back in those days with no money what so ever. He was getting none from the Presidents at Wake like Dr Scales and we couldn't even get a decent coliseum built until we got Dr Hearn behind the effort on our 3rd attempt.

TheReff blows another call. Ho Hum.

 

[94Deac]

No, I don't have any secret stats or inside information. You're right, I don't think it would be useful to rehash the arguments, especially being outnumbered 1 million to one. Suffice it to say that 2 years of graduate level statistics taught me that stats without context are useless. My interpretation of the context would be label me as naive, being an apologist, a shill for the AD, or worse on this board. So I'll just leave it at that.

Fair enough. And I agree that context is essential for statistics. The primary context upon which I evaluate Jeff [Redacted]'s statistics is "job performance over time." I don't know how many different contexts you can evaluate these stats. At some point, it's res ipsa loquitur.

 

[LilburnDeac]

In answer to the question, it would seem to be that the Athletic Director is the one who directs athletics.