Takes on the next USF President?

[DELdaBull]

Looks like it will be Blanchett or Currall.

[bull2saintleo]

2 minutes ago, DELdaBull said:

Looks like it will be Blanchett or Currall.

Yes, I agree.  I lean towards Blanchett because of her education background.

[SilverBull]

52 minutes ago, CousinRicky said:

As much as we hate Rutgers sports, it has a pretty good reputation scholastically.

That's what special fundraiser Tony Soprano said anyway.

Seriously though,  being an effective major university president in modern times takes an almost impossibly diverse set of experience and skills just to appeal to the various constituencies.  For my part, I would like a little Betty Castor, a little Judy Genshart, a little Barack Obama and a whole lot of Teddy Roosevelt.

https://www.higheredtoday.org/2017/12/04/evolving-nature-college-presidency/

 

 

[USFRaider]

Whomever is selected to be the next President, I just hope he/she cares more about Athletics, or we will forever be in the dust of ucf.

[JTrue]

42 minutes ago, USFRaider said:

Whomever is selected to be the next President, I just hope he/she cares more about Athletics, or we will forever be in the dust of ucf.

More about athletics and less about academics?

[NewEnglandBull]

42 minutes ago, JTrue said:

More about athletics and less about academics?

I think the two go together. Of course academics are most important but the new president needs to know that athletics compliments academics. To ignore the PR value of athletics is foolish. For better or worse the so called “Doug Flutie” effect is real. However, it only works if athletics is worth a ****. Let’s face it, that is debatable relative to USF over the past years.

Of course I could be wrong relative to our G5 status, but I would really like to see what would happen to quantity and thus quality of applicants and $ donated if football and men’s basketball did something really great (women’s sports will never move the needle). 

[CousinRicky]

58 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

I think the two go together. Of course academics are most important but the new president needs to know that athletics compliments academics. To ignore the PR value of athletics is foolish. For better or worse the so called “Doug Flutie” effect is real. However, it only works if athletics is worth a ****. Let’s face it, that is debatable relative to USF over the past years.

Of course I could be wrong relative to our G5 status, but I would really like to see what would happen to quantity and thus quality of applicants and $ donated if football and men’s basketball did something really great (women’s sports will never move the needle). 

Pretty sure there was a bump after 2007 but the trajectory has continued upward scholastically way after that.  I'm sure Princeton does just fine without athletics.  And, yes, I know we aren't Princeton - just Princeton South.  

[George_Bullnard_Shaw]

14 minutes ago, CousinRicky said:

Pretty sure there was a bump after 2007 but the trajectory has continued upward scholastically way after that.  I'm sure Princeton does just fine without athletics.  And, yes, I know we aren't Princeton - just Princeton South.  

MIT doesn't worry about athletics either. Probably a ton of academics first schools who succeed that way and get the students they want.

[USFRaider]

2 hours ago, JTrue said:

More about athletics and less about academics?

No, just more about athletics.

[CousinRicky]

Looking at resumes I don't see any Athletics stuff.  Were any of them student athletes?