Jump to content

Jay Hartzell has entered the Transfer Portal


Ghost of LL

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

Failure?  Lol. Many CEOs get butthurt over what their employees think. That’s when CEOs do petty shit like reduce those employees’ influence or jettison them. Regardless, your characterization of him being “butthurt” is a wild fabrication.  He didn’t do anything petty. He didn’t behave in a manner deserving of a termination. He said “I don’t need this shit” and found a better gig. Unless you think Schlossnagle, after a national champ series appearance, was “butthurt”. Nah, he just didn’t want to be around Aggies. 

YOU said he was butthurt, in so many words.  He absolutely should have been fired, his response to the protests was reprehensible.  I'm done arguing with you, you're a nutjob.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

YOU said he was butthurt, in so many words.  He absolutely should have been fired, his response to the protests was reprehensible.  I'm done arguing with you, you're a nutjob.

 No I didn’t. You read what you wanted to read.  The nutjob comment is rich given your commentary in this thread (and in general). 

16 minutes ago, royiv said:

Again, he didn’t lead shit in that situation. He took his orders from Abbott. Give your man Abbott his due if you think it was fantastic leadership.

Apparently you were in the room when decisions on how to handle things, or rather take orders, was going down. And you totally ignored all the communication coming from Hartzell himself that was widely celebrated by the non-nutjob faction of UT alums. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look. Maybe you’re right… but your take is also just speculation. I know both Jay and Kevin a bit, so far as I see them at the gym, see them at parties, and have both of their phone numbers. I’ve never heard either of them mention politics, but I have heard them both mention that running UT is like running a small country. 
Well- I’ve heard Eltife bitch about Tx Lege plenty, but not as it relates to UT. 

Lobo?
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's actually a bit worse than I thought. https://www.smu.edu/aboutsmu/administration/trustees

The only identifiably liberal members are basically the UMC members.  They're all rich bidnessmen, lots of oil and finance/investments.  Rich Templeton of TI is the vice chair and I like him a lot, but don't know how he votes. 

I know most of these people. To assert it isn’t right-leaning is lunacy. Paul is very similar to me: right-leaning and socially liberal. He doesn’t ever preach politics or any kind of hate toward LBGTQ. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you know little about the United Methodist Church vs. the Southern Baptist Convention. Methodists, as a general proposition, appreciate education and other liberal values, without interference from the church.  

Just wanted to point out that SMU wants to leave the UMC umbrella because the church is too liberal. Texas Supreme Court to decide 2019 case soon and may approve SMU decision to separate itself from the church’s control.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gucci_Suit said:

Last thing I’ll say here.

During Covid, Jay and I worked out a lot at about 5:30am at the neighborhood country club. The way I felt about it then and since, is that he was stressed the fuck out by all the shit that is UT… protests, donors, development, faculty, legislature, etc. My take was that everyone wanted him to be a blowhard and all he wanted to do was play school. Which is awesome- playing school is what we need. But much like being the head football coach at UT, being the President ain’t just about the X’s and O’s of education. 

It’s our loss. Happy for him. 

No, No, No. he left for X, Y, Z reasons that people will fling their confirmation bias all over this thread and and have no freaking clue what’s going on. And I thought the Quinn Ewers thread was Surly at its finest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

This isn't hard to understand.  The faculty "no confidence" vote.  The PLO sympathizers vandalizing his home a couple of times. 

SMU and a big home in Highland Park (where they actually have a responsive police force) sounds like a nice change of pace.  Hope that he does well.

a group of men are watching a chicago bulls game

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I couldn't care less what Vic thinks.  He's a highly paid basketball coach.  He doesn't give a shit about anything but his team, he certainly doesn't give a shit about academics or UT's academic reputation.  He's a fucking Aggie, for crying out loud.

I lived next door to him for 5 years Vick is a good man 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 4th_and_18 said:


Just wanted to point out that SMU wants to leave the UMC umbrella because the church is too liberal. Texas Supreme Court to decide 2019 case soon and may approve SMU decision to separate itself from the church’s control.

Now I'm confused. I had it on good authority that comparisons to Baylor were uncalled for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 4th_and_18 said:


Just wanted to point out that SMU wants to leave the UMC umbrella because the church is too liberal. Texas Supreme Court to decide 2019 case soon and may approve SMU decision to separate itself from the church’s control.

Unless you're on the Board of Trustees, I'm not sure anyone conclusively knows why SMU attempted the split.  It was clearly related to the 2019 General Conference, which, thanks to non-US churches and conferences, voted to maintain bans against LGBQT clergy and marriage.

Ironically, somewhat, that caused the schism under which "conservatives" left the UMC denomination, despite having "won."

When the BOT amended the Articles of Incorporation in 2019, SMU President Turner mentioned that LGBQT rights were protected, whatever that means.  Supposedly, Bishop Scott Jones was one of the only dissenting votes to the amendment, and he was the sole Trustee that was actually affiliated with the governing body, the Southern Conference of the UMC.

And no, SMU is nothing like Baylor and never has been.  The UMC has not been at all heavy-handed with the university and would never do shit like ban drinking or dancing on campus.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

This isn't hard to understand.  The faculty "no confidence" vote.  The PLO sympathizers vandalizing his home a couple of times. 

SMU and a big home in Highland Park (where they actually have a responsive police force) sounds like a nice change of pace.  Hope that he does well.

People protesting and vandalizing his home sounds like it played a big factor. Was told SMU ponied up big $$$. I hate to see him go but it sounds like his timing is good. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, BlackCat said:

People protesting and vandalizing his home sounds like it played a big factor. Was told SMU ponied up big $$$. I hate to see him go but it sounds like his timing is good. 

Yeah I would imagine calling in the storm troopers on your own student body would get some staff and faculty and students pissed at you

Edited by Captainant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I believe this is the driver for SMU. The list is former UMC AAU related schools is quite long.

Well, unless they get a medical school on campus and a whole lot more research money, affiliation with the UMC will be the least of their problems.

The AAU ain't for small private schools.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excited to see what he can do for SMU with the resurgence of attention and donors. Academic rankings have slipped some and Turner has been there forever.

It’s definitely nothing like Baylor…maybe the opposite. Don’t think I went in Perkins much except when some friends got married there later.

Nice to have big time sports back on campus though.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, unless they get a medical school on campus and a whole lot more research money, affiliation with the UMC will be the least of their problems.

The AAU ain't for small private schools.

Yeah not having a medical school will make it difficult but the AAU is about half small/private and a few like Rice don’t have med schools. They would need to significantly increase (5X) their research dollars but if they can get close I have no doubt they could get the votes.

With their perception/status and top 100 ranking they fit it with Rice, Tulane, Vandy, Emory, and are now affiliated with the ACC which has 9 AAU members it’s seems like the votes will be there if they can raise their research budget/profile.

While I don’t think this is something that will be easily accomplished, I also don’t think it would be unreasonable to set as an aggressive 10 year goal (assuming they are able to separate from the church).

 

image.thumb.png.1d3d1b75df1f3647398af8c69f1c75ed.png

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. the average tenure of a university president s 5.9 years......you add in the fossils like Turner at SMU, the former presidents at UTEP, UTSA, and Texas State that have recently left (that average is in the USA, but those are LONG service and way past their time presidents I am familiar with) and a president leaving after 5 years is not unusual

2. looking at what Turner made and considering that a lot of people give him credit for "building a lot of fountains and buildings" and not much else I can see them offering $4 to $4.5 million per year especially to "poke at Texas" and that is about 3X what he was making at Texas and with no state income tax that shit goes a long way.....and I am sure he still have plenty of friends that will let him sleep on their futon if he wants to visit Austin and go to the lake or hang out in one of those nice casistas

3. the AAU is about a lot more than just research....they value specific types of research with competitively awarded, nationally and internationally relevant, life sciences, engineering, and medical research being preferred and they also like research into the fundamentals of things not research into taking known things and making them useful or more useful......they weigh all of that on a per faculty member basis so one needs to look at faculty count when comparing to other private schools that do not have a medical school.....they like National Academy members and Nobel Prize winners and other similar awards on faculty and they place a lot more value on a university where faculty win those awards while on faculty vs. a university money whipping a bunch of them to come work there like some schools try to do

I think the biggest issues SMU will have is being compared to other private schools already in or on the cusp, finding a place to set up research facilities on a campus that is stuffed full and in a high cost of land area (even across the freeway), they are more business and law than life sciences and even their engineering is relatively new in terms of universities, and they are not a small university for a private one and again a lot of their enrollment is business students and areas outside of fundamental sciences so they will have to add faculty in areas of low enrollment and or grow the enrollment in those areas on a stuffed full campus....or turn over their student mix which could help some rankings provided they do not cut faculty in programs if they lower enrollment in some to grow enrollment in others.....they will need to grow graduate enrollment as well and probably trim down their MBA enrollment to do so

4. I would think that Guy Bailey the president of UTRGV would be a candidate for Texas and before anyone says anything he was at Tech a while back and did a lot of good things for them (that have since been allowed to slip), but he left of Alabama (I know not an academic powerhouse, but where he and his wife met) and then his wife got terminal cancer and passed away and that job fell to shit when he need time off to be with her after just being hired.....to their credit Alabama was very generous to him......after it was all over the merger/formation of UTRGV was taking place along with their med school and he jumped on it

I thought the UTD president might be a candidate, but I just read he is 73 and has stepped down earlier last year (after being there since 2016)....I would imagine of Texas struggles to get who they want for a bit he might step in for a couple of years.....but I don't see that being an issue

I would not be surprised if Guy Bailey declined the job he has things on automatic down there and I believe he is pretty well liked still

I would imagine there will be plenty of candidates and some from places that might surprise people

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Turner's main accomplishment was maintaining strong alumni support and fundraising in the post-death-penalty era at SMU.

SMU's academics prior to the 80s were on par with UT's, for the most part, especially their business school and fine arts.  But it had begun to wallow a bit in the 80s and killing off football endangered it.  And tuition had become astronomical, making it a dubious value proposition.

Another thing Turner did was revitalize engineering and STEM after SMU had previously declined a monstrous donation from TI founders to beef up their engineering programs that instead went to UTD and is largely responsible for its ascendance.

I have seen credible reports that Turner and Hartzell made the same, so I'm not sure they had to go a lot higher to attract him, given the other shit he was having to deal with that he won't at SMU.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think Turner's main accomplishment was maintaining strong alumni support and fundraising in the post-death-penalty era at SMU.

SMU's academics prior to the 80s were on par with UT's, for the most part, especially their business school and fine arts.  But it had begun to wallow a bit in the 80s and killing off football endangered it.  And tuition had become astronomical, making it a dubious value proposition.

Another thing Turner did was revitalize engineering and STEM after SMU had previously declined a monstrous donation from TI founders to beef up their engineering programs that instead went to UTD and is largely responsible for its ascendance.

I have seen credible reports that Turner and Hartzell made the same, so I'm not sure they had to go a lot higher to attract him, given the other shit he was having to deal with that he won't at SMU.

their tuition is massive, but the one thing about that is they do give a lot of financial aid

https://www.smu.edu/-/media/site/admission/prospective-student-publications/fy25/240877-financial-aid-brochure-issuu-r0.pdf

looking at that they have it with a cost of $86K all in with housing and meals, but over 50% of their students get $30K or more in "gift aid" that does not need to be paid back

another 17% are getting at least $20K and up to $30K

https://www.smu.edu/admission/financialaid

and above it says 71% of their students graduate with no debt at all

that is one thing people ignore with these "rack rate" tuitions there are a number of wealthy students that are paying rack rate so that others can get a lot of financial aid and there are a lot of wealthy donors that are giving money that goes to financial aid that cuts that rack rate tuition way down for a very large % of students

for Texas in state fall and spring on campus "rack rate" is $32K and unfortunately one thing that Texas is known for along with aggy is not having a massively generous financial aid package in terms of "free money" that does not have to be paid back over and above what is available from the feds and other sources that most universities and their students can access.....and as far as recruiting out of state students where "rack rate" is just under $65K a year there is even less available

the UT System does have free tuition for families earning under $100,000, but there is still the cost of housing and I would imagine at SMU a student with good enough grades where SMU really wants them coming from a family making under $100K they will probably pay about the same or less to go to SMU vs Texas

most of the top private universities with large endowments could do a much better job framing their tuition cost overall, but then again I think some are less interested in students and their families that cannot investigate and figure a lot of that out for themselves.....it shows a bit of a lack of effort to really find a match and a reason to make a choice besides simply "cost" or what is perceived as cost without doing some basic investigating

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, unless they get a medical school on campus and a whole lot more research money, affiliation with the UMC will be the least of their problems.

The AAU ain't for small private schools.

This.  AAU is about your ability to bring in big research dollars and members of the National Academy. Oregon nearly lost their AAU status a while back before Shoe Daddy dumped a bunch of money into the STM programs to lure federal dollars and top tier talent. 

Edited by Bateshorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...