The #1 Pep Band in College Basketball

[GSII]

Does Doc Nix have a contract? I know we don't take the band for granted, but aren't other schools looking at what we have and saying, "what if we double his salary???"

You are going for the jugular. dang.

 

[psyclone]

Does Doc Nix have a contract? I know we don't take the band for granted, but aren't other schools looking at what we have and saying, "what if we double his salary???"

Doc is a tenured faculty member. He is free to go elsewhere at any time, just like any other faculty member. The main thing to keeping him at Mason is to keep him satisfied. He does have roots in the area and I gather that he enjoys the role he plays here. There aren't many faculty that become icons of the university where they work. Granted, Larranaga opted to leave, but the coaching profession is quite different than being a tenured faculty member.

If another school offers to double his salary, he could use that to negotiate a higher salary to remain at Mason, if he wished to do that. Treat him fairly--pay, job conditions, etc.-and he's likely to stay at Mason.

There's no way of tying him to Mason via a long-term contract.

 

[GMUgemini]

He's a professor and probably wants to stay at Mason to get tenure (if he doesn't have it already). And tenure is the golden ticket, holy grail for professors. You're pretty much untoucahble when you get tenure. Kind of like a "made man" in the mafia.

I’m pretty sure he’s got tenure. He’s been there for almost 15 years now.

Dude is so connected on campus, I can’t imagine him going anywhere — also, never knew tuba was his instrument.

 

[Jack Strop]

My main point being, that if they established funds for specific projects (locker room upgrade, new hardwood, etc.) people would feel more connected and I think would be more likely to contribute rather than the current give to our club that employs fundraising people with salaries that total more than total contributions to our club, but trust us that we will spend it wisely.

To your point, of course, Mason can choose what strings they accept. But, they don't have to accept all strings because they accepted one. Just because they accepted my money for band uniforms doesn't mean they they have to accept someone else's money for a new coach. I don't see a slippery slope.

I saw what I thought was a need (new uniforms for our green machine that wears gold for some odd reason). I was willing to donate upwards of 10K to buy new outfits (I figured less than 100 members at roughly 100 bucks a head). They were not interested in committing to buying new outfits with that money. Why should I feel obligated to donate $10k for them to use somewhere else that I don't agree with or trust them to spend wisely. I wanted to see new uniforms, not something else. Guess what, as far as I can tell, we still have the same lame looking gold jerseys from about 10 years ago when this went down. How is that working out?

It is a slippery slope. Donations with conditions can have a negative effect on those who the money does not reach. Those parties begin to feel slighted, cultivating resentment and animosity, not only toward the ones who are the beneficiaries of the donation, but also those who allowed the donation, i.e. management. The foundation to manage and lead erodes to the point of disfunction. Who wants to be in charge of that? Therefore, the most reasonable poilcy is to not accept conditional donations.

There are also potential Title IX considerations, but that's way beyond my scope.

So then what happens with a fan who wants so badly to support his team? If the conditional money won't be accepted via traditional routes then there's a huge temptaton to offer it under the table. That's how hookers get hired for recruitment parties; a parent of a student athelete receives a new Cadillac; a student athelete suddenly has loads of cash to buy a complete new wardrobe.

We all know the stories that have led to serious NCAA violations and sanctions, as well as criminal activity. And, in all probably, they have roots with donors having very good intentions. However, if the AD is not careful it all inevitably leads to "whoops... the whole University just slid down the hill and into the sewer below." Therefore, the best policy is to steer clear of that oil-slicked mountain in the first place.

 

[Leesburg Chankenstank III]

It is a slippery slope. Donations with conditions can have a negative effect on those who the money does not reach. Those parties begin to feel slighted, cultivating resentment and animosity, not only toward the ones who are the beneficiaries of the donation, but also those who allowed the donation, i.e. management. The foundation to manage and lead erodes to the point of disfunction. Who wants to be in charge of that? Therefore, the most reasonable poilcy is to not accept conditional donations.

There are also potential Title IX considerations, but that's way beyond my scope.

So then what happens with a fan who wants so badly to support his team? If the conditional money won't be accepted via traditional routes then there's a huge temptaton to offer it under the table. That's how hookers get hired for recruitment parties; a parent of a student athelete receives a new Cadillac; a student athelete suddenly has loads of cash to buy a complete new wardrobe.

We all know the stories that have led to serious NCAA violations and sanctions, as well as criminal activity. And, in all probably, they have roots with donors having very good intentions. However, if the AD is not careful it all inevitably leads to "whoops... the whole University just slid down the hill and into the sewer below." Therefore, the best policy is to steer clear of that oil-slicked mountain in the first place.

So are we saying that if I wanted to donate $5 million specifically and only to the men's Volleyball team, I couldn't do that?

And correct me If I'm worng but I thought Title IX only applied to funds from Public sources, not private.

 

[GMUgemini]

So are we saying that if I wanted to donate $5 million specifically and only to the men's Volleyball team, I couldn't do that?

And correct me If I'm worng but I thought Title IX only applied to funds from Public sources, not private.

I’m pretty sure you can specify what sport, but you can’t tell them what to spend that money on.

 

[Leesburg Chankenstank III]

I’m pretty sure you can specify what sport, but you can’t tell them what to spend that money on.

Got it, thanks. What about the Title IX question? I googled it but the answers werent't very clear.

 

[GMUgemini]

Got it, thanks. What about the Title IX question? I googled it but the answers werent't very clear.

I’ve never had to deal with title IX compliance outside my day to day responsibilities (which is in a classroom not an Athletic department), so no idea. But I can see how a specific thing might bump up against it iPads for the men’s team but not the women’s) as opposed to shared facilities (locker roooms, practice facility, weight room) as then you get into problems of equity and “equal opportunity to participate.”

 

[gmubrian]

It is a slippery slope. Donations with conditions can have a negative effect on those who the money does not reach. Those parties begin to feel slighted, cultivating resentment and animosity, not only toward the ones who are the beneficiaries of the donation, but also those who allowed the donation, i.e. management. The foundation to manage and lead erodes to the point of disfunction. Who wants to be in charge of that? Therefore, the most reasonable poilcy is to not accept conditional donations.

There are also potential Title IX considerations, but that's way beyond my scope.

So then what happens with a fan who wants so badly to support his team? If the conditional money won't be accepted via traditional routes then there's a huge temptaton to offer it under the table. That's how hookers get hired for recruitment parties; a parent of a student athelete receives a new Cadillac; a student athelete suddenly has loads of cash to buy a complete new wardrobe.

We all know the stories that have led to serious NCAA violations and sanctions, as well as criminal activity. And, in all probably, they have roots with donors having very good intentions. However, if the AD is not careful it all inevitably leads to "whoops... the whole University just slid down the hill and into the sewer below." Therefore, the best policy is to steer clear of that oil-slicked mountain in the first place.

Sorry, I think you couldn't be more wrong it you tried.

First off, this has exactly ZERO to do with title IX:

"Title IX does not prohibit private funding, revenue production, fundraising, booster club or other donations from subsidizing athletics. ... Title IX does not require identical programs for men and women or identical benefits for women's and men's teams in the same sports.?"
http://titleixspecialists.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Title-IX-Executive-Summary.pdf

I don't know how in the world you get from a school choosing to accept appropriate donations and that causing people to go outside legal routes. Your solution would be more likely to cause that than anything else. Look what happens when the government outlaws something completely, let's say alcohol (the equivalent to your banning all targeted donations), a black market springs up. Remember prohibition? When it is permitted but with some reasonable restrictions (our current restrictions on the sale of alcohol might be considered reasonable) there is zero black market and the illegal purchase of it is fairly minimal in the scheme of things.

You are the one that has created the slippery slope with your illogical stance. So, should we get rid of targeted giving to Men's basketball, or any other sport? They already allow it. How is that any different than me wanting to target a donation to new jersey's for the gold, urm, I mean, green machine?

Then why should you be allowed to target your donation to just athletics? Using your logic, it should just have to go to the school?

Wait, that is not right, why should you be able to donate to GMU? Using your logic, you should only be able to donate to the state's fund for schools and the state will decide how your donation will be allocated to the various schools.

Wait, that is not right, why should you be able to donate just to schools. Using your logic, you should donate it to the Virginia General Fund and the money will be spent by the state wherever it sees fit.

There is no end to the slippery slope that is created by your logic. Whereas, in my scenario, the school just says no and any stupidity ends.

 

[Jack Strop]

Sorry, I think you couldn't be more wrong it you tried.

First off, this has exactly ZERO to do with title IX:

"Title IX does not prohibit private funding, revenue production, fundraising, booster club or other donations from subsidizing athletics. ... Title IX does not require identical programs for men and women or identical benefits for women's and men's teams in the same sports.?"
http://titleixspecialists.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Title-IX-Executive-Summary.pdf

I don't know how in the world you get from a school choosing to accept appropriate donations and that causing people to go outside legal routes. Your solution would be more likely to cause that than anything else. Look what happens when the government outlaws something completely, let's say alcohol (the equivalent to your banning all targeted donations), a black market springs up. Remember prohibition? When it is permitted but with some reasonable restrictions (our current restrictions on the sale of alcohol might be considered reasonable) there is zero black market and the illegal purchase of it is fairly minimal in the scheme of things.

You are the one that has created the slippery slope with your illogical stance. So, should we get rid of targeted giving to Men's basketball, or any other sport? They already allow it. How is that any different than me wanting to target a donation to new jersey's for the gold, urm, I mean, green machine?

Then why should you be allowed to target your donation to just athletics? Using your logic, it should just have to go to the school?

Wait, that is not right, why should you be able to donate to GMU? Using your logic, you should only be able to donate to the state's fund for schools and the state will decide how your donation will be allocated to the various schools.

Wait, that is not right, why should you be able to donate just to schools. Using your logic, you should donate it to the Virginia General Fund and the money will be spent by the state wherever it sees fit.

There is no end to the slippery slope that is created by your logic. Whereas, in my scenario, the school just says no and any stupidity ends.

I'm sorry that none of us don't understand.

 

[gmubrian]

I'm sorry that you don't understand.

Strong argument.

 

[Jack Strop]

Strong argument.

I'm also sorry that you feel slighted, resentful, and bitter that your generous and well-intentioned donation was rejected. There is no point in me making any additional argument. Your mind is set. Ain't Mason's Green Machine the best pep band in the land?

 

[gmubrian]

I'm also sorry that you feel slighted, resentful, and bitter that your generous and well-intentioned donation was rejected. There is no point in me making any additional argument. Your mind is set. Ain't Mason's Green Machine the best pep band in the land?

I am sorry that you can't follow your own slippery slope argument to it's logical conclusion. I provided a perfect example of why your logic was so far off and then you resorted to the "you don't understand" argument. And now you are resorting to personal attacks (like your personal attacks on Reuter might I add).

On the contrary, I am not bitter about them not accepting my donations. I am glad that they made the decisions they did as it opened my eyes. I was way too emotionally invested in the program. Their actions ended up saving me a lot of money over the last decade or so.

Do I think they are idiots for the way they run the AD, hell yes and I make no bones about it with my posts on those topics, but, I am still thankful they saved me the money. I get to see the same games you do and listen to the same great band that you do (yes they are the best in the land). It doesn't bother me one bit now whether they win or lose. I am no more sad or happy at the end of a game based on the outcome. I just have fun watching the games, occasionally yelling at a ref and hanging with friends. I enjoy analyzing the ups and downs and the merits of various aspects of the program, too. I recommend most of you on here develop that attitude. It won't be good for the program overall, but you all will be much better off individually. Additionally, I am pointing out things so that maybe it will open some of your eyes as well, if you want them opened.

 

[sleeperpick]

I am sorry that you can't follow your own slippery slope argument to it's logical conclusion. I provided a perfect example of why your logic was so far off and then you resorted to the "you don't understand" argument. And now you are resorting to personal attacks (like your personal attacks on Reuter might I add).

On the contrary, I am not bitter about them not accepting my donations. I am glad that they made the decisions they did as it opened my eyes. I was way too emotionally invested in the program. Their actions ended up saving me a lot of money over the last decade or so.

Do I think they are idiots for the way they run the AD, hell yes and I make no bones about it with my posts on those topics, but, I am still thankful they saved me the money. I get to see the same games you do and listen to the same great band that you do (yes they are the best in the land). It doesn't bother me one bit now whether they win or lose. I am no more sad or happy at the end of a game based on the outcome. I just have fun watching the games, occasionally yelling at a ref and hanging with friends. I enjoy analyzing the ups and downs and the merits of various aspects of the program, too. I recommend most of you on here develop that attitude. It won't be good for the program overall, but you all will be much better off individually. Additionally, I am pointing out things so that maybe it will open some of your eyes as well, if you want them opened.

A couple things:
1. Reuter is really bad
2. you have brought up this donation about 9000 times in the past 3 years (since I have been on this board).... we get it man
3. I am glad you enjoy going to the games without the added stressors of being financially and emotionally invested
4. Maybe I will take that route some day (getting sick and tired of mediocrity myself

 

[Jack Strop]

I am sorry that you can't follow your own slippery slope argument to it's logical conclusion. I provided a perfect example of why your logic was so far off and then you resorted to the "you don't understand" argument. And now you are resorting to personal attacks (like your personal attacks on Reuter might I add).

On the contrary, I am not bitter about them not accepting my donations. I am glad that they made the decisions they did as it opened my eyes. I was way too emotionally invested in the program. Their actions ended up saving me a lot of money over the last decade or so.

Do I think they are idiots for the way they run the AD, hell yes and I make no bones about it with my posts on those topics, but, I am still thankful they saved me the money. I get to see the same games you do and listen to the same great band that you do (yes they are the best in the land). It doesn't bother me one bit now whether they win or lose. I am no more sad or happy at the end of a game based on the outcome. I just have fun watching the games, occasionally yelling at a ref and hanging with friends. I enjoy analyzing the ups and downs and the merits of various aspects of the program, too. I recommend most of you on here develop that attitude. It won't be good for the program overall, but you all will be much better off individually. Additionally, I am pointing out things so that maybe it will open some of your eyes as well, if you want them opened.

I already stated my position and there is no point to clarify it further. I could poke gaping holes into your position, however, I choose not.

My man, there was no personal attack intended. Judging from your intense missives above and the numerous others all over this forum regarding this subject there is no other conclusion to make aside from you being resentful and bitter. I, and many on this forum, see a perspective from you that is tainted by your spurned and unrequited love for Mason men's basketball. And it haunts you. Your behavior is clear. I hope you recognize it and come to terms before it burns a hole through your belly. Good luck, my friend.

 

[Five Two]

Remember prohibition?

I'm too young, but Uncle Jollay tells stories about how he used to be a 'moonshine runner'.

 

[GMUgemini]

My man, there was no personal attack intended. Judging from your intense missives above and the numerous others all over this forum regarding this subject there is no other conclusion to make aside from you being resentful and bitter. I, and many on this forum, see a perspective from you that is tainted by your spurned and unrequited love for Mason men's basketball. And it haunts you. Your behavior is clear. I hope you recognize it and come to terms before it burns a hole through your belly. Good luck, my friend.

I believe it also stems from his interactions during the Merten/TOC era which was particularly bad.

I think the Cabrera/Edwards era has been better but there are still too many who suck the fun out of college sports in our athletics department. We have a ways to go when it comes to engagement.

 

[Jack Strop]

I believe it also stems from his interactions during the Merten/TOC era which was particularly bad.

I think the Cabrera/Edwards era has been better but there are still too many who suck the fun out of college sports in our athletics department. We have a ways to go when it comes to engagement.

Whoa, whoa whoa... you can't use the word "suck"!

 

[GMUSig03]

I already stated my position and there is no point to clarify it further. I could poke gaping holes into your position, however, I choose not.

My man, there was no personal attack intended. Judging from your intense missives above and the numerous others all over this forum regarding this subject there is no other conclusion to make aside from you being resentful and bitter. I, and many on this forum, see a perspective from you that is tainted by your spurned and unrequited love for Mason men's basketball. And it haunts you. Your behavior is clear. I hope you recognize it and come to terms before it burns a hole through your belly. Good luck, my friend.

Jack/Brian - trust me, you guys are not each other's enemies. Kiss and make up before I put you both in time out.

 

[gmubrian]

A couple things:
1. Reuter is really bad
2. you have brought up this donation about 9000 times in the past 3 years (since I have been on this board).... we get it man
3. I am glad you enjoy going to the games without the added stressors of being financially and emotionally invested
4. Maybe I will take that route some day (getting sick and tired of mediocrity myself

I have never mentioned this donation previously. This one happened when I still had my green and gold blinders on.