If they take Alex English off the Trustee's
- Thread starter saltlifeGamecock
- Start date
The Governor appoints two members of the BOT. The rest are elected by the legislature. I believe Alex was appointed temporarily to fill the unexpired term of King Dixon. McMaster has been calling legislators lobbying for Alex to get the job. Some members of the legislature have objected to the pressure.
The truth is this exposes the underlying flaw in the BOT. It is too political. There are too many favors being traded which results in a BOT which is not independent. Some might even say this at the center of the problem with our athletics programs.
The truth is this exposes the underlying flaw in the BOT. It is too political. There are too many favors being traded which results in a BOT which is not independent. Some might even say this at the center of the problem with our athletics programs.
Last edited:
The Post and Courier - SC lawmakers face another debate over race. This time it’s on the USC board.
It sounds like your dispute should be with your elected official(s), not the University of South Carolina.
Is the university at fault? Should it lobby elected officials on behalf of Alex English? If so, should alumni and fans encourage it do so?
I have no objections to a diverse board of trustees. You may be interested in the following article from the Harvard Business Review: When and Why Diversity Improves Your Board’s Performance.
Guess he’s not making enough political donations. We all know board positions are bought by campaign contributions.
This ^^^^^^^^^^is the difference between us and the taters. Always has been.
Taters pack theirs with small business owners and it shows. We pack ours with politicians. The results speak for themselves.
Alex English has brought nothing less than dignity to the table even as far back as his teenage years. He has honored our university multiple times over. If our state legislators can’t honor Alex now, the degree of corruption in the state capitol exceeds the low water mark of corruption that has existed there for decades. And I didn’t think it could be more corrupt.
Why does the governor get a spot on the Board? Does Clemson put political figures on theirs or do they just have people who generally have their universities best intrest at heart? It just seems like we have issues with our board and atleast once or twice a year they are in the media for something for something dumb they did(approve muschamp 15m) or one or two of them flapping their jaws to the media. You just hardly ever seen other major universities board in the news as you do ours.
At one time there was more than one tater on the USC Board but no USC Alums on the tater board. Not sure if this is still the case.
I support Alex and he is and would be a great board member
I agree. But the BOT is one of their toys. You can't ask children to give up toys unless you give them something else.
One solution would be to elect the BOT by popular vote. But that would probably result in gridlock. One thing that should happen is that to be eligible they have to be a graduate and a history of financial support for the University.
I would also commission a study of how major state universities are governed and take the best aspects of successful Universities (not just sports) and incorporate them into a fundamental change. But SC does not like change (too conservative) so nothing will likely happen.
For example, the University of Alabama is a self-nominating board. They nominate their own members for 6 year terms. The State senate confirms it. They are also dominated by the counties where the campuses are located.
In Georgia, the Board of Regents are all appointed by the Governor and approved by the State Senate. But it governs all public universities in the State. That would not be possible in SC because Clemson was established by the will of Thomas Clemson.
I like the self-nominating board structure in Alabama. It would limit horse trading.
The guy from Laurens that was just appointed took king Dixon’s spot. Not Alex English. - To my knowledge, which ain’t much.
I grew up around his son Alex jr...they’re stand up people. Even though his kid grew up as basically a semi celebrity he was humble, friendly, and just a nice person all the way around (even at a young age). I call that being a product of good parenting. So while I didn’t know Sr more than a random “hey mr English“... his sons mentality told me he’s a pretty good dude. All the respect in the world for him
Clemson has a 13-member Board, including seven self perpetuating members (pursuant to will of Thomas G. Clemson) and six elected by the state legislature.
I have said this for years. Clemson and specifically Dabo have managed to keep the political jerkoffs out of the athletic department and it shows. He has even managed to shield his entire operation from politics and boosters upfront influence. You can say its done through a church, you can say theres some influence from the Esso club, but the fact remains, however he and Dan have done it, the NCAA considers it above board. USC has been weighed down by political influence and payback for years. The BOT is beholding to a bunch of douche bag politicians. USC has not been able to insulate the athletic department from the politicians influence. Hence, why we still suck and the Clemmers have national championships. JMO
So this is your tipping point? Another nice bait thread that will be pulled.
Alex was nominated to fill the vacancy left by William Hubbard who became dean of the law school. I'm contacting my Representative to let them know I would like for him to be elected to a full term as an excellent choice to represent me as an alum. If you agree, you should also let your Representative know.
I think you should have to be alumni, or at the very least a BIG donor. But hell, Id take a roost member from gamecock club over the ppl we have now..
Might that hearken back 50+ years with the foolish decision made to leave the ACC?
I've never understood the ridiculous accusation that the BOT is responsible for the problems with the AD. The job of the BOT is to set University Policy, approve the budget, and hire, fire, and supervise the President. It does not hire any other personnel. It does not hire coaches or asst coaches. It does not dictate what kind of offense or defense we run. It does not get involved with any aspect of coaching. It does not recruit the athletes that compete. There has never been a game won or lost because of the BOT.
As to the loyalty of the members to the University, if you look at the bios of each member, I believe each one has a degree from the University of SC of some sort. It may be a bachelor's degree, a masters degree, a law degree, or a medical degree, but each one has attended and has some sort of degree from the University.
As to the loyalty of the members to the University, if you look at the bios of each member, I believe each one has a degree from the University of SC of some sort. It may be a bachelor's degree, a masters degree, a law degree, or a medical degree, but each one has attended and has some sort of degree from the University.
I have said for years (after I heard a wise gentleman say this
“Carolina will never be a dominant sports school as long as it’s in Columbia unless the legislature is moved to Sumter “
“Carolina will never be a dominant sports school as long as it’s in Columbia unless the legislature is moved to Sumter “
I have said for years (after I heard a wise gentleman say this
I hope you don't believe that.
This is a lame excuse made up by a loser that has been totally debunked by our recent final four appearance and multiple national championships in baseball and WBB. Can’t go back and say “well I was only referring to __ sport”.. Or something stupid. The only thing holding us back is the fact we play in a tough conference and our competition is better than us. It is not the fault of our BOT, the location of our school or the mentality of the fan base for supporting the team even when we suck. This school has the financial resources and commitment to be successful in all sports but there are literally hundreds of teams Competing for the same trophies as us every year and we are simply not as good as some of them. Making up excuses for why is what losers do. We need to focus on how some of our programs HAVE been successful and work harder to repeat that in the two sports national audiences care most about.I have said for years (after I heard a wise gentleman say this
Why do you say it was foolish. Perhaps it was but I’m not sure. We would be at the same relative level in both conferences if that makes sense to you. We were severely treated by the in crowd (Tobacco Road) just as we are abused by the tmSEC blue bloods now. Personally I would rather be in the SEC but I miss the easier travel of the ACC (at least back then). Just curious about your comment.
The first time I heard that was from Danny Ford at a Touchdown Club Meeting many years ago when someone asked him about coming to USC. Words were slightly different. Point was exactly the same. I believe he just pointed his finger up toward the State House.I have said for years (after I heard a wise gentleman say this
I wasn’t making an excuse
I was stating a fact
The BOT is too political
I had a close friend on the BOT
He cared about the university and its sports
He complained to me all the time about this matter
It’s money and politics
The Clemson BOT runs a better program
Fact check it
I was stating a fact
The BOT is too political
I had a close friend on the BOT
He cared about the university and its sports
He complained to me all the time about this matter
It’s money and politics
The Clemson BOT runs a better program
Fact check it
Leaving the ACC killed MBB, and made no significant difference in all other sports. Frank McGuire, as great a coach and personality that he was, carried a chip on his shoulder throughout his career, and it very much showed in Columbia.
To his credit, though, he complained about the ACC tournament both at UnCarolina and at USC. He had several job offers after leaving the Philadelphia Warriors. Why did he choose, in 1964, to return to a conference whose basketball policies he abhorred? I'm certain that many around the ACC wondered that too, and what was USC thinking hiring him. Nobody in the ACC would have begrudged our success per se, but McGuire had irritated too many officials around the league while at Chapel Hill. As I've stated on many occasions, USC was merely in the crossfire between McGuire and league officials. Remember, leaving the league was Dietzel's idea/folly. Frank merely had to go along, thinking/hoping that his program was on solid enough ground to succeed as an independent. It didn't take but a few years to discover that the ground was not solid.
Go back to the early '60s. Clemron was enjoying some success under Press Maravich (Pistol Pete's dad). Frank Howard (also Clemron AD) was about as unsupportive of hoops success as you can get. Press got no raise, and when Everett Case came calling from Raleigh to offer Press a position as his assistant at NCSU with a larger salary than Clemron was paying, well of course he jumped.
Interesting how Dietzel and Howard, both head FB coach and AD at their respective schools, did not like a non-football sport showing them up. Which is why, as I've posted before, it's a bad idea for the head coach of any sport to also be the AD at the school - potential conflict of interest.
Indeed, USC is in a much better position in the SEC than in the ACC. But that does not negate the unwise move to leave the ACC almost 50 years ago. An objective, impassioned person 50 years ago would have recognized the folly of secession. Over the years, some posters have justified leaving the ACC as the only way we would have joined the SEC. Not buying it. Look at Mizzou & aTm leaving the Big XII, and Maryland joining the B1G.
The BOT, with one notable exception, was suckered by Dietzel that things would be better as an independent.
Got any decent paraphernalia left? Please send to goodwill or any charitable organization of such.
You left out one thing...law enforcement. LE in Clemson and LE in Columbia are 2 different things. I'll let you guess which one is more forgiving and blind.
We need to repeat that in all sports USC sponsors, not just those which national audiences care most about.
The BOT does have to approve contracts of "major" university hires. True, they do not search, hire, and fire candidates for open positions, but again, they have to approve some employment contracts.
It would behoove many posters to read up on Solomon (Sol) Blatt, former longtime General Assembly representative, and his involvement with USC and the athletics program.
Ohhhhhhh! So they use those awesome supernatural approval powers to destroy the athletics program?
Precisely my point. And later, they had a falling out. IMO, no state legislator should have that much power regarding school policies.
