With all the athletic dept house cleaning that is coming any chance we can get plonsky to set sail too?
With a vball national title, wcws appearance in SB, championships in swimming and diving all in the last 2 years, and resurgent Bball and soccer programs it's highly unlikely......and at this point I don't know if it would be necessary.
Id hold off on declaring a resurgence in basketball. They where only got worse last year plus do you just ignore the last 10 years before now? Also the Bev issue trumps all other positive.
Bev was an entire university decision (which I did not support) so I dont think that falls on one single person. And I dont think that it was bad enough to trump a championship
Wrong to let go? Hell no I'm saying for everything she allegedly did and that Happened under her while coaching track. I guess that's not a big deal to most but with someone that far outside the rules for that LNG id think her boss would get hit with some shrapnel. You're way off if you think she'd replace Dodds before leaving Texas. The money guys wouldn't go for that.
it better be a complete house cleaning. sorry to break it to you all, but this kearney fiasco falls on plonsky's rather broad shoulders and once this nightmare scenario plays out there's a high likely hood that she's gonna be radioactive.
only if she moves to take over DeLoss' job. Won't surprise me to have her serve as a resource for the new AD.
Please Jesus. Two atrocious WCBB hires in a row. GG was understandable, but the current holder of the record for the worst season in WCBB history and it was entirely predictable given Astons's record speaks to very bad judgement on Plonsky's part. Enough sentimental half-witted nepotism. The university needs fresh and competent decision making.
She should be fired simply for discriminating against male coaching candidates. Wake me up when she hires her first male head coach (not gonna give her credit for Coach Elliott, despite what she might claim). Once Raasin Macintosh files here lawsuit against Bev, and the University who she will claim failed to protect her from Kearney, Plonsky will be hard-pressed to survive, IMO. The only good thing Plonsky has done is help get big money from ESPN for the LHN. Her presence may actually prevent Texas from hiring a great athletic director for the Men's program, as most ADs lead both programs.
overseas, You can spin my comments any way you want, and you are welcome to disagree with my opinions. The facts are Plonsky thinks no one has noticed that she has hired nothing but female head coaches since she became AD: - Patty Fendick (tennis) - Angela Kelly (soccer) - Gail Goestenkors (basketball) - Karen Aston (basketball) - Martha Richards (golf) - Kim Brackin (swimming) - Carol Capitani (swimming) - Rowing? probably female Don't tell me it's just a coincidence that none are male; if you believe that, you are simply naïve. It is sexual discrimination if she is making being female a criteria for her candidates. Look at how many male coaches A&M and Baylor have in their athletic programs; coincidentally, their ADs are male. As for women coaching men's collegiate teams, that has nothing to do with this topic. No major college or pro team has broken that barrier. If women applied and interviewed for such positions and they were the most qualified, then the should be hired. As for the performance of her hires, none (other than Brackin who she fired) has even come close to sniffing a national championship, and have only accumulated a handful of Big 12 championships. I guess you're happy with those results. Thank goodness track & field was taken away from her direct authority; but, considering the mess she made in promising Kearney the "leftover" money from Goestenkors contract, only to later fire her in a manner that has resulted in a lawsuit and public embarrassment, that was an easy decision.
Uh oh. I can feel the trembling. Patterson gets off on cleaning house. There has to be some scared individuals. Good thing is mediocrity won't be tolerated so either we are good or she will be gone.
Since the men's AD and the women's AD have separate but supposedly equal, departments they oversee, I have no idea why anyone would think that whoever is hired as the men's AD will have any influence on whether Chris stays or leaves. One is not the boss of the other, whichever way you look at it. Now, the bosses of both, that's a different matter. But they do appear to be okay with how Chris is running things in her department.
Several posters on Orangebloods.com are stating that Plonsky will be on her way out; no way of knowing who to believe. Could have something to do with how she handled the Kearney situation. Texas is the only school to have separate athletic departments ever since Tennessee merger their a couple of years ago. Obviously, the majority of schools don't find it necessary. Plonsky worked for Dodds for several years before succeeding Jody; now that Dodds is leaving, perhaps her biggest supporter will no longer be around.
Most schools who combined athletic departments did so for reasons, including financial concerns, that are not applicable at Texas. That anyone who truly loves and supports women's athletics, and understands its' history and ongoing evolution, believes combining departments would be a positive development is beyond my ability to understand. It certainly wouldn't be a good thing for anyone concerned, and I guarantee no coach or staff person of a women's program (male or female) would ever want to see that happen. As far as the comment about Deloss being Plonsky's biggest supporter, the truth is she enjoys tremendous support at all levels, and rightly so. She is one of the most respected and highly regarded administrator's in the country, a fact routinely commented on by most in the media. One thing that is apparent to me, and I am not necessarily referring to anyone who has posted on this thread, is that those who are the quickest to criticize our women's athletic department are often individuals who don't care that much about women's sports to begin with. We should be thankful that those who do care are the ones making decisions, and running the department. Finally, I would suggest anyone who wonders just how important it is to have someone like Plonsky at the helm watch the current Texassports video on the recent Women's Hall of Honor inductees. The comments of all athletes are worth watching, but former VB star Diane Watson's interview at the 2:40 mark should tell you everything you need to know about the way Texas athletes, past and present, feel about this subject.
Things change. Our Track & Field programs have been combined under one head coach. From what I read, swimming and diving was also almost combined under Eddie Reese's supervision.
Combining sports is a far different thing than combining men's and women's athletic departments. And our T&F HC reports into the women's AD for women's T&F.
Regardless of the poor job I think Plonsky has done in hiring head coaches and those coaches performance, the decision-makers will do what they believe is best. Here is a post from someone on Orangebloods.com who claims to have an inside source at Bellmont: Bevo's **** has officially hit the fan, but before I tell you what is being said inside the walls of Bellmont, everyone needs to have a clear understanding of what has happened in the last seven days. A week ago today, I sat in a room with a senior Texas athletic official and was told that Oliver Luck was going to be the next AD. There was actually an effort late last week to inform everyone in the departments about what was about to take place and I personally spoke with two men's coaches that were informed by Dodds' office that Luck was going to be the hire. Those same two coaches told me this week that there was no advance notice of the Patterson hire within the athletic department and that they found out about the news by reading Twitter and this site. Both coaches told me that there was shock on the faces of many inside the departments that the news was delivered in such an impersonal manner after the attempt last week to keep everyone in the loop. A member of Dodds' inner circle told me this week that Dodds' involvement was minimal. When I asked what minimal means, he simply replied "what do you think minimal means?" One slightly less senior AD official told one of these coaches this week that the hire of Patterson and the lack of communication within the departments at the top is an indication that it's "time to get our resumes updated." The feeling inside the building is that there's about to massive overhaul and today's dog and pony show didn't nothing to slow that down. One of the coaches told me that the plan was for Luck to begin his AD tenure working hand in hand with Dodds through at least the end of this year, but that is not the plan now. As it was explained today in the news conference, Patterson is the AD as soon as the BOR approves his contract. Dodds is out and didn't even survive November. There is nothing new to report with Chris Plonsky. One way or another, she's out and everyone seems to think it will be set up to look like she's simply taking on a new challenge and going in a new life direction. Her role as AD will come under serious scrutiny when the Bev lawsuit picks up steam again. She will be gone. Finally, Mack is nervous but he believes he can keep his job if he wins because he has enough support to make things very difficult on the new AD even if his support is considered "old man" support. . He was outside the loop and has been for 2 months. He uses the hell out of his Orangebloods account to keep up.
I actually liked a lot of what I heard in Patterson's press conference today. And I also think a lot of that OB post needs to taken with a grain of salt. The fact the poster thought the Luck hire was a done deal speaks to that. And Powers also made it clear in the press conference that DeLoss would be around until next August, and for many years thereafter in a different (special assistant to the President) capacity. I would also say Plonsky's presence at the presser, and the comments made about her indicate she is going to remain women's AD, with the full confidence of all concerned. Or that's what I took away from what was said anyway.
And one other thing I've been wanting to mention concerns the multiple references you've made about the Kearney termination, and its potential impact on Plonsky's job. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that. There seems to be pretty universal agreement that Plonsky, and the department handled that situation in a highly professional, and appropriate manner. A rule was broken and a staff person was held accountable, and terminated accordingly. I think most of the criticism, or questions that arose had to do with whether or not our men's athletic department had handled similar situations in a like manner. In fact, IIRC media reports at the time indicated the basis for any legal action by Bev would stem from her contention that she had been treated differently than others who had committed similar offenses. I have no idea whether that's true or not, but there seems little doubt the department handled Bev's termination in a clear and straightforward manner, and based solely on her failure to adhere to the rules.
If Plonsky is let go, it will be because of the Bev Kearney situation, not because of the new AD on the men's side. And even that appears to iffy on Kearney's part although one never knows when lawyers are involved. I will need to see her leave first. Although I do think she has done well in her role as women's AD and do not think there is a reason for her to leave.
According to what I read, Plonsky promised Kearney a sizeable raise due to the "leftover" money after Goestenkors resignation, and how much less they were paying Coach Aston. To me, Kearney had way-underperformed those last few years, not even having enough sprinters to field a relay in one outdoor season. Yet, you promise her a raise just because we had leftover funds? Bev's lawsuit is based on the reasons she was told she was being terminated; so, IMO, Plonsky did not handle it well. Texas Monthly reported that Raasin Macintosh was the one who came forward about her past relationship with Bev. Strangely, she is an employee in the women's athletic department; not sure if Plonsky was the one who hired her, but that is a bit strange. Supposedly, Macintosh is going to sue Kearney, and The University for failing to protect her from Kearney; to me, that has the potential to make Plonsky look very bad. As for Plonsky's coaching hires, I've already said numerous times that I don't believe her hiring nothing but female head coaches is a coincidence. And to top it off, none have sniffed a national title, and rarely compete for conference titles. Elliott, Kearney, and Clark are the ones who had the most success in the last 10 years, and they were Jody's hires. Brackin had success, but Plonsky had to fire her. When we had recent coaching vacancies, the different fan sites I visted all had posters commenting that "Texas won't hire male head coaches" for its women's athletic programs. So, not only is that the perception of fans across the country, it's probably the perception of many potential candidates. Not a good vibe at all.
I cannot believe Patterson (or any viable candidate) would have taken the job if he was not promised to be THE AD within a certain period of time.
It seems to me that there are four or five different issues being discussed in this thread, and with respect to Plonsky, the majority of which are wholly unrelated. And, interestingly enough, that only serve to contradict the very points some are attempting to make. To begin with we have the simple reality that our women's athletic department has a separate AD. And it seem to me that many who seem the most bothered by this fact aren't particularly supportive of women's sports in the first place. Some of the comments made on other forums aren't worth repeating, in particular when these entities don't even feature boards specifically dedicated to women's programs or issues. The truth is those who follow women's athletics the most closely understand the importance of the current structure, and that's why those at the highest levels of the University, including President Powers, are so strongly committed to maintaining separate athletic departments. The University has long been at the forefront of women's collegiate athletics, and has drawn consistent praise for providing increased opportunities at all levels. There has been a lot of conversation nationally about the need to expand opportunities for women, both in coaching and administration, and Texas is often held out as an example in this regard. That some don't like this is obvious, and in my opinion incredibly sad. It is also worth noting that having separate ADs doesn't diminish the fact both departments work closely with one another, and share many functions and staff. The combined departments have always had the appearance of being a cohesive and mutually supportive unit. A separate discussion from the current structure (a settled issue IMO) is Plonsky, and her future as women's AD. And here is where I think a lot of erroneous, and often inappropriate commentary has taken place. One of the main complaints, both on this forum and elsewhere, has been that she doesn't hire enough male coaches. Or more accurately, that she only hires women. The fact such an assertion is even made only reinforces the importance of having Plonsky at the helm, and more generally the need for maintaining separate athletic departments. In a landscape in which more and more women are participating in collegiate athletics, and entering the coaching ranks each year, it defies logic that anyone would label hiring women to lead women's athletic programs as discrimination against men. Such a characterization is so far removed from anything that makes sense it's difficult to understand how any reasonable person could draw such a conclusion. Plain and simple this is a conversation about equity, and providing increased opportunities for women because that's the fair and right thing to do. A term like discrimination implies a stronger candidate was passed over to make way for a less qualified one, which hasn't been the case at Texas. As noted previously we have hired highly qualified men that didn't work out, and taken chances on others that did. And that applies equally to men's and women's athletics. And we are all aware that many considerations go into hiring a coach, for any program, and often the most successful aren't seen as a good fit. We see that same discussion taking place right now with respect to our future FB HC, when/if that transition happens. I have seen too many threads to count that summarily dismiss a lot of highly successful candidates for a whole host of reasons, none of which has to do with their proven ability to win. And finally it bears repeating that the subject of hiring a woman to lead a men's program, or run a men's athletic department (something a number of Div I programs have now done), was dismissed by some as completely unrelated. Or put another way, a topic not even worth discussing. Yet in the same breath these individuals call hiring a woman to lead a women's program discrimination. How is that possible? As far I'm concerned this ought to settle the argument once and for all, insomuch as there was one to start with, and shows just how much work remains to be done with respect to increasing opportunities, and changing attitudes. Mention has also been made of the performance of certain programs under Plonsky, and some recent comments have been posted regarding Kearney's departure as T&F HC. The latter will be addressed separately. As far as athletics go, success is always a fair discussion when talking about coach and AD performance. The highs and lows are well known, but I would also say much of the negative commentary about Plonksy has had little to do with on-field/court achievements, and have been a feature of this forum, and others for as long as I can remember. There were more than a few questionable posts made at the point the department was enjoying considerable success during the middle part of the decade; three consecutive Sweet 16's and FF for WBB, three CWS appearances for SB, two NCAA titles in both Indoor and Outdoor T&F, and numerous other top national finishes and conference championships. Overall Texas is the most successful women's department in Big 12 history, including winning the most NCAA team titles (6 - tied w/ a&m, no other program with more than two), and more conference championships than any other program by a wide margin. The gulf only increase when taking into account national player/athletes of the year, NCAA individual champions and All-Americans. Would I like for us to do even better, and to win more championships? That goes without saying, but the truth is our women's athletic department has been successful, and is among the most highly regarded in the nation. More importantly I have never heard anything but the highest praise for Plonsky, at all levels. She is one of the most accomplished, and honored administrators in the country. Coaches and players all hold her in high regard. And both colleagues and superiors, among them Powers and Dodds, are also highly supportive. I've always found it suspect that most criticism of her seems to come in the form of posts on anonymous message boards. Many of the comments don't merit discussion, and for others the main gripes all seem centered around the simple fact we have a women's athletic department at all, much less an actual woman running it. And I have to ask, why?? I do not believe the real issue is with Plonsky; she is too successful and highly regarded for that to be the case. And I will never understand why some have such a problem with the mere existence of a women's athletic department and separate AD role. And trust me; regardless of other issues that are bandied about, or that occasionally make their way into posts about Plonsky, that is the real issue. I find our commitment to women, in all it's varied aspects, one of the most impressive components of our athletic tradition. Fortunately, it seems those who matter, and who support our women's athletics programs the most, feel the same. Another issue, and perhaps the most bizarre given all that's been discussed above, is the one of having our new men's AD take on additional responsibilities as head of a combined department. First, and most obvious, it seems a mute point given the University's steadfast, and long term commitment to maintaining the current structure. But since the subject was broached by a few posters, consider the implications of what you are actually saying. I'll start by reiterating I think Patterson is a great hire, or I like what I've seen and heard thus far at any rate. Obviously he has a lot on his plate, and his effectiveness (or lack thereof) won't be known for some time, but clearly he impressed those responsible for making the decision, including Powers. And given the President's longstanding commitment and support for women's athletics, I more than trust his judgment. I think it is also fair to say Patterson is an unproven entity with respect to leading a major collegiate program given that he was only at the helm of ASU for two years. But this combined with his track record leading other organizations was enough to merit his selection, along with the obvious appeal of his history as an alum. Frankly I knew nothing about him until his selection was announced. From what I can tell ASU did not win an NCAA championships during his short tenure, not that they were expected to, or that this in any way takes away from his performance as AD, or his selection to lead Texas. ASU had won 7 NCAA team titles in 5 different sports in the four seasons preceding his arrival, though none were in the so-called marquee sports (men's indoor T&F, women's indoor T&F - 2, women's outdoor T&F, women's golf, and softball - 2). If his job was to turn around some of the higher profile sports, clearly their FB team is on the rise (currently in 1st in the Pac-12 South, and ranked in both major polls). There has been some comment about ASU officials being unhappy with his departure, not surprising given that he made a lot of changes, and now won't be around to see whether or not most turn out to be successful. But most have to know that accepting the position with Texas was a foregone conclusion once it was offered, and I was impressed with what I heard in his press conference yesterday. I also heard Power's comments about having the right values, and character, and clearly those responsible for this decision felt he embodied those traits. But the idea that a new AD tasked with turning around some of our biggest programs would also be asked to take on the women's athletic department, and with just two years prior experience as a collegiate AD, seems pretty far removed from reality. And he would probably be the last person to want or accept that responsibility given everything else he has to contend with at this point. Moreover he is taking over for someone who led the department for 32 years. The notion that the University would also want to replace another AD at the same time, and one who has also been with the athletic department in various capacities since the 1980's, seems almost impossible. Handling one transition of that magnitude presents enough of a challenge, and set of risks, and I can't see any way another wholesale change would be made, or even considered, anytime soon. Nor is it warranted. Again this entire conversation seems pointless since the University has made clear its' committment to the current structure, but what does seem likely is that Plonsky will be one of his most important resources, both during the transition and beyond. Finally, I am at a loss to understand what those who have brought up the Kearny departure would have had the department do differently. I asked an earlier poster if they thought Texas should have kept her on board, to which the response was, "hell no." Well, what then? The only two options were keeping her or letting her go. Plonsky certainly isn't responsible for Bev's actions, nor is the AD who hired her 20 years ago. What she was responsible for was handling the incident in an appropriate and professional manner. And in that respect she gets high marks. The comment about the contract extension has nothing to do with Bev's termination; the two are unrelated. Bev was offered a raise prior to the incident coming to light based on performance. She is one of the most successful coaches in Longhorn history. Between 1998 and 2006 she led the team to 6 NCAA titles, the same number as all 16 other Texas programs combined managed during the same timeframe. In addition, during her tenure as coach the team finished top 3 at the NCAA meet 15 times, and had a total of 28 top 10 team finishes. That is simply incredible. Throw in 20 conference titles, and 50 individual and relay NCAA crowns, and most would say whatever raise she was offered probably wasn't enough. And IIRC, the year before the raise was proposed, the team was supposed to be in a re-building phase, and found themselves ranked outside of the top 15 for one of the few times in its' history. And in true Bev fashion, they surpassed all expectations and catapulted all the way to a runner-up finish at the NCAA Indoor meet. That bears some semblance to the 2005 season, when the Horns took the Outdoor team title with the fewest individual qualifiers/competitors in NCAA history. By contrast, at the most recent Outdoor meet, the Horns had the most individual qualifiers of any program in the country, and finished 15th. It probably isn't fair to compare the two, in particular given the challenges faced after Bev's departure, but it makes the point the salary increase offered to Kearney was both expected and warranted. There isn't any connection between the raise, and events that ultimately led to her dismissal, and I certainly don't know what it has to do with any discussion about Plonsky's future as AD. I know there is a poster on this forum who believes Bev should have stayed, but frankly I don't know how the University would have made that work. And had Bev simply been disciplined, and allowed to continue as coach, I can only imagine the comments we would have heard on this board, and elsewhere. All other issues with respect to Bev, and whether she was held to a higher or different standard, or treated differently than other (presumably male) coaches have been in the past, seem pointless to comment on. All of that is based on information none of us have knowledge of. Clearly there are male coaches at other institutions who made the same mistake as Bev, and who found employment elsewhere almost immediately. Perhaps Bev will eventually be afforded the same opportunity, if that's something she's even interested in. But the simple fact remains she broke a rule and suffered the consequences. I don't see how it could have ended any differently, or how the University could have handled the incident in any more of a straightforward and professional manner. And yes, I would also expect the rules to be applied evenly to everyone. As is almost always the case in situations like this, whatever happens from this point forward will likely have very little to do with the actual facts of the case. Money is likely the reason this came to light a decade after-the-fact, and will also be the means by which it eventually gets put to rest for all concerned.
makes one wonder how much of that $1 million the former student will sue Kearney for. Applewhite's and Kearney's situations are not similar. He followed the rules and disclosed soon after and it was a one time situation. He was disciplined and was promoted and got a pay raise after the discipline. Kearney not only continued the affair for an extended period, she did not disclose it until the student made it known. Two different situations. Now, whatever was said to Kearney by Plonsky is something that will be brought out and will the other situations Kearney refers to. Should be interesting reading about those dynamics between people in power and their subordinates and how some abuse it.
