Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RebelRobert

Utah State President Defends His Actions As Criticism Mounts

Recommended Posts

I continue to check USU's board every couple days and in so doing, continue to be amazed that there is absolutely nobody there who has questioned the prez. As I said the other day, if SDSU was in USU's place, I guarantee people would be coming out of the woodwork to question whether the guy actually rejected an offer to join the MWC and if he didn't, why he said he did, and if he did, why he reportedly did so without first confirming from Fresno State and UNR that they were similarly going to decline such an offer.

In my opinion, the whole thing just doesn't pass the smell test. Maybe USU fans have just been holding their noses and hoping for the best. If so, they just might want to check the poll here to discover how badly MWC fans want them in our conference.

Of course, he protected the mothership.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things.

1. It isn't for fans to decide, so why would anyone care what internet posters think?

2. There are about 25% (as an estimate) of the fans that are pretty upset with him. The rest understand the situation he was in, and can see that a "binding" agreement was made which most thought would have been honored since the ink was still fresh.

My own thought is this. We are in a financial recession that was largely caused by deciet and greed as people tried to get credit for their homes. Being honest has its consequences, as does dishonesty. Honoring contracts and agreements in principle matters, and for that he does have my respect. USU graduates players, disciplines people who cause trouble, and has the highest collective GPA of any WAC school. They do things the right way, and will live with the consequences.

Coupla things:

1) If anyone didn't "honor the agreement," it was BYU. They had signed onto a MOU saying that they were coming to the WAC. The "binding resolution" was entirely contingent on BYU officially becoming a part-time member of the WAC. They haven't, and likely won't, and because of that, and because of the language in the MOU that the SL Trib obtained, it looks like Fresno St. and Nevada are off the hook for their exit fee. No BYU signature on the dotted line, no exit fee.

2) Even if the exit fee is determined to be binding, Fresno St. and Nevada have still adhered to the letter of the MOU. They will fork over the necessary $$$. As such they will have honored the "binding agreement."

They have to do what's in the best interests of their universities, and that means joining the MWC. If anyone's to blame for this mess, it's BYU. They're the ones whose selfishness set off this chain of events. If not for their actions, we would not be discussing this.

"Once an Aztec, Always an Aztec"

CSU Fresno: Accepting SDSU's sloppy seconds since 1911.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and he fukd over USU in the proccess... The dude is a BYU Alum. He had BYU's interests ahead of his USU's. Maybe BYU gets him a cush job, but if USU is out in the cold after all of this... He will be out of a job and hated in logan. Because he will be the man that destroyed USU athletics.

USU athletics has been screwing themselves all by themselves...it is not like Albrecht did anything to worsen it. USU athletics was never anything to be "destroyed" anyways.

porta_potties_sfw.jpg

Facilities are being upgraded to match the quality of play with the new teams coming into the conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coupla things:

1) If anyone didn't "honor the agreement," it was BYU. They had signed onto a MOU saying that they were coming to the WAC. The "binding resolution" was entirely contingent on BYU officially becoming a part-time member of the WAC. They haven't, and likely won't, and because of that, and because of the language in the MOU that the SL Trib obtained, it looks like Fresno St. and Nevada are off the hook for their exit fee. No BYU signature on the dotted line, no exit fee.

2) Even if the exit fee is determined to be binding, Fresno St. and Nevada have still adhered to the letter of the MOU. They will fork over the necessary $$$. As such they will have honored the "binding agreement."

They have to do what's in the best interests of their universities, and that means joining the MWC. If anyone's to blame for this mess, it's BYU. They're the ones whose selfishness set off this chain of events. If not for their actions, we would not be discussing this.

I think it's a bit difficult to say Fresno and Nevada honored the agreement when Item #4 of the agreement read: "The WAC and its members and BYU, agree that all current members of the WAC (except Louisiana Tech and Boise State, which has already given notice of its withdrawal) will not join any other conference or athletic conference from the date of adoption of this resolution through June 30, 2016, contingent upon BYU agreeing that it will not join any other conference or athletic conference from the date of entering a contract with the WAC through June 30, 2016."

Yes, thee was a penalty clause, but the agreement was to stay in the conference. The contract was valid as soon as it was approved that day by vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utah state made a big mistake with this one. It couldve been them instead of Reno. I just don't think this conference can afford to have both. It's probably back to the sunbelt for them and Idaho and nmsu. Maybe they can shock us and entice utep back. I'd be suprised if sjsu survives this one. Hawaii should go Indy which will be a step up for them. Byu should just put them on the annual ooc. Hawaii could probably use them on the schedule too.

2005, 2009, 2010 & 2011 MWC Football Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ethics matter, but they don't get you into the MWC... remember isn't all this stuff suppose to be about business?

Your post suggests that business and ethics are incompatible - that you can have one or the other but not both. I would disagree with that sentiment. Not only are they compatible but, in my view, long term success requires both. People ultimately reap what they sow.

Warren Buffett doesn't tend to find many deals anymore. Because of his reputation as an extremely ethical businessman, deals find him. People with successful businesses to sell approach him.

Ethics matter. And long term, ethics usually make you more money and more successful than a lack of ethics does. And they keep you out of jail.

Yoda out...

____________________________________________...

After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway.  And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response…

Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here.  My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks.

Steve was first banned on the SDSU board.  When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board).  It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.”  (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show.  Then the haters arrived.)

I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others.  But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong.  And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too.  Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him.  (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.)

I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this.  My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board.  I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning.  The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide.  But was the post taken down?  Was an apology issued?   Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay.  This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join.  And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve.  You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves.

Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago.  He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”.  Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down.  The poster has never been admonished.  And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology.

In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in.  A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve).  It won’t be the last one.  You need to fix this.  You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a bit difficult to say Fresno and Nevada honored the agreement when Item #4 of the agreement read: "The WAC and its members and BYU, agree that all current members of the WAC (except Louisiana Tech and Boise State, which has already given notice of its withdrawal) will not join any other conference or athletic conference from the date of adoption of this resolution through June 30, 2016, contingent upon BYU agreeing that it will not join any other conference or athletic conference from the date of entering a contract with the WAC through June 30, 2016."

Yes, thee was a penalty clause, but the agreement was to stay in the conference. The contract was valid as soon as it was approved that day by vote.

byu could still join the WAC if they wanted. Nothing is stopping them from honoring their half. Is Fresno and Reno really that important to byu's other sports? Fresno and Reno hit the jackpot, the WAC lost it all, and the mwc might be breaking even.

2005, 2009, 2010 & 2011 MWC Football Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post suggests that business and ethics are incompatible - that you can have one or the other but not both. I would disagree with that sentiment. Not only are they compatible but, in my view, long term success requires both. People ultimately reap what they sow.

Warren Buffett doesn't tend to find many deals anymore. Because of his reputation as an extremely ethical businessman, deals find him. People with successful businesses to sell approach him.

Ethics matter. And long term, ethics usually make you more money and more successful than a lack of ethics does. And they keep you out of jail.

Yoda out...

as a tcu fan I can tell you that being ethical hasn't gotten us anywhere regarding conference realignment. In reality the usu president violated his fiduciary duty to his school. Specifically his duty of care.

2005, 2009, 2010 & 2011 MWC Football Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as a tcu fan I can tell you that being ethical hasn't gotten us anywhere regarding conference realignment. In reality the usu president violated his fiduciary duty to his school. Specifically his duty of care.

Never mind...

Yoda out...

____________________________________________...

After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway.  And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response…

Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here.  My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks.

Steve was first banned on the SDSU board.  When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board).  It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.”  (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show.  Then the haters arrived.)

I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others.  But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong.  And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too.  Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him.  (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.)

I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this.  My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board.  I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning.  The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide.  But was the post taken down?  Was an apology issued?   Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay.  This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join.  And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve.  You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves.

Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago.  He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”.  Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down.  The poster has never been admonished.  And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology.

In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in.  A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve).  It won’t be the last one.  You need to fix this.  You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine too.

Ethics matter.

Yoda out...

Agree with both Celeritas and Yoda. Albrecht stood up for a form of binding agreement (semantics of who did/didn't sign...). Yes, there was a buyout of $5 million which was part of the agreement, but was to be used as a deterent or "poison pill" for anyone to break from the agreement. I understand his desire to continue to pursue MWC membership and really any form of conference membership that would tie USU to either BYU or Utah, which has eluded them since the breakup of the Skyline Conference.

While he has a duty to the athletics department, he has even larger duties regarding the academic missions of USU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post suggests that business and ethics are incompatible - that you can have one or the other but not both. I would disagree with that sentiment. Not only are they compatible but, in my view, long term success requires both. People ultimately reap what they sow.

Warren Buffett doesn't tend to find many deals anymore. Because of his reputation as an extremely ethical businessman, deals find him. People with successful businesses to sell approach him.

Ethics matter. And long term, ethics usually make you more money and more successful than a lack of ethics does. And they keep you out of jail.

Yoda out...

I agree with everything you are saying. I follow the same mantra with my business, so keeping what you said in mind about Buffett, then it is very likely that CUSA or the Sunbelt may come calling at USU's door asking them to come on board. They will land somewhere undoubtedly. I just would not like to see that landing spot in the MWC. JMHO.

**  “It’s a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what.”

“There’s no ‘I’ in team. There’s a ‘me’ though, if you jumble it up.”

 

hoserjpg-2009.jpg.1a3e5724d48c16a835b94dde26c99132.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess we know where you stand in terms of your own administration then too. No underhanded dealings by Fresno to get into the MWC, right?

I think what happened here was that the Fresno pres completely miscalculated this whole thing. I'm sure he was totally and completely surprised by the invite. He made the deal that he did and signed on to the MOU and buyout not expecting to be invited to join the club, and he was bitter about it. Then The Hair came calling, and his entire demeanor changed; smacked himself on the head and screamed "WHAT HAVE I DONE!?!?!"

I think there was some lingering bitterness about being left out in the cold 11 years ago, and he was anxious to stick it to the MWC. Then the invite came: "Oh, really? Well then, nevermind!"

"Once an Aztec, Always an Aztec"

CSU Fresno: Accepting SDSU's sloppy seconds since 1911.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and he fukd over USU in the proccess... The dude is a BYU Alum. . . but if USU is out in the cold after all of this... He will be out of a job and hated in logan. Because he will be the man that destroyed USU athletics.

So I guess we can thank this mess on the Ute President and on the Board of Directors.

And congratulate Utah for hiring a Cougar.

Or Closer's spew is as silly as always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess we know where you stand in terms of your own administration then too. No underhanded dealings by Fresno to get into the MWC, right?

I realize that you are being facetious but, yes, it applies to my own school's administration too. But I'm not as hypocritical as you seem to suggest. I've made the ethics argument on the Barkboard -- repeatedly, strongly and passionately. And I'm getting killed.

Yoda out...

____________________________________________...

After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway.  And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response…

Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here.  My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks.

Steve was first banned on the SDSU board.  When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board).  It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.”  (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show.  Then the haters arrived.)

I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others.  But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong.  And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too.  Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him.  (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.)

I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this.  My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board.  I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning.  The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide.  But was the post taken down?  Was an apology issued?   Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay.  This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join.  And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve.  You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves.

Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago.  He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”.  Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down.  The poster has never been admonished.  And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology.

In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in.  A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve).  It won’t be the last one.  You need to fix this.  You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but his binding agreement quote bugs me. But I can't believe he was that poorly informed. Every K can be breached and the remedy is almost never specific performance, but damages. Now did he trust the wrong people? Of course. But the whole reason for a $5 million dollar buy out is because it's to deter a breach. Any lawyers on this board disagree? I could be completely wrong.

2005, 2009, 2010 & 2011 MWC Football Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...