Nick Carparelli

[AZOrange]

Eh, he's not Superman. In fact, he's the guy who brought SU a new law school dean who's being sued left and right by subordinates at his previous employer.

Yeah I don't understand that hire at all...

 

[OttoMets]

Yeah I don't understand that hire at all...

A little bird told me that chances of this sticking for longer than Coyle's tenure are 50/50. A lot of disappointed faculty/board members.

 

[AZOrange]

A little bird told me that chances of this sticking for longer than Coyle's tenure are 50/50. A lot of disappointed faculty/board members.

not surprising. Pretty underwhelming resume.

I will mix things up when I get in there as AD. Thanks for the support Scooch. Joyce when do you need me to start?

 

[HtownOrange]

not surprising. Pretty underwhelming resume.

I will mix things up when I get in there as AD. Thanks for the support Scooch. Joyce when do you need me to start?

Not so fast, we have to vet (not like a dog, but we will be dog you with questions) you before you can waltz right into the office. Also, we have Tomcat nominated (he has promised a ginger in every hand at every game - top that promise!).

So I checked you Linked In file:

AZOrange
Education: Syracuse University (good so far!)
Location: AZ (Of course, every good CNYer heads south at some point - shows good reasoning ability)
Experience: Writer (lots of writing in the AD office - would have to agree no writing class papers, non-negotiable, all other writing is good)
Interests: Syracuse Sports (dude, you are on a roll!)
Making money (A must for a P5 member school)
Hates Georgetown (who doesn't, but still a prerequisite for any job on the hill. As a potential AD, this must be signed in blood.)
Enjoys Mocking Rutgers ('nuff said)
Dislikes: Unpainted benches in the Dome
Politicians who interfere with Syracuse U. expansion plans

OK, you are vetted. Forward your resume and salary demands to the office. Scooch can vouch for you. Tomcat will have competition. LET THE AD GAMES BEGIN!

 

[nzm136]

I agree with the bolded part of the sanctions paragraph; that was an easy way for the administration to get rid of Gross. In reality, any AD hire is going to be Boeheim's subordinate, not the other way around. It's a tricky situation.

The spending was a serious problem, though. We're not talking about necessary capital improvements. This is about a structural disaster in the department: careless hiring, reckless spending, and an organizational failure that hamstrung SU's ability to most efficiently use its resources from what you note is a competitive disadvantage.

Gross used nepotism to build a bloated bureaucracy that didn't do a very good job of running the department. His vision has paid off, but the organizational havoc he created led to his dismissal.

It's great that we had him, but we need to do even better with the next hire.

Everyone keeps pointing to spending and giving really general justifications (i.e. bloated bureaucracy). What exactly are you accusing the guy of? For instance, do you think that his coaching staffs were too big? Do you think that we fielded too many sports? Do you think that we had too many secretaries? Where specifically was he spending too much money?

I know I probably sound argumentative, but I really don't mean to be. As I see it, the guy spent money. He built new facilities (which we needed), he changed conferences (which was CLEARLY the right move), he advertised in the city (which apparently worked - see UConn, SJU, Rutgers, and B1G copycat advertisements), and he hired top notch coaches (which apparently worked - see our athletic success - especially this year). Yes, he dipped into the rainy day fund, but that's why it exists - we don't have big local companies that we can lean on. At the end of the day, he brought us way into the black, and that's incredibly rare. Most athletic departments run in the red. I don't think that that stuff could seriously be called reckless spending. The actions that I see seem a lot like prudent investing.

 

[nzm136]

So I'm supposed to give you the name of the person in the AD? As to the finances, running in the black one year, if we did, doesn't correct running in the red others. An example, if we were $10M in the red for 3 consecutive years, then was $20M in the black for one, is that good? No. I'll stick with my facts because he was fired so...oh, and BTW, I don't see other schools chasing after him.

Underlined: No. Your supposed to tell me exactly what he did that you have a problem with and not just "coloring outside the lines." Phrases like that can mean next to anything.
Italics: You're using hypothetical numbers to attempt to show that he actually lost money. If you can't see the problem with that, I'm not sure we can keep arguing.
Bold: Then you're not looking. His name has been mentioned at other schools.
Firing: Yeah, we got nailed by the NCAA. What did you expect to happen? The guy at the top always takes the fall, but that doesn't mean that it's right or that he shouldn't be given a second chance. A lot of very, very good coaches have rebounded. In Gross' case, the NCAA stuff was more bad luck than anything else. Some of it didn't even happen on his watch.

 

[orange79]

Underlined: No. Your supposed to tell me exactly what he did that you have a problem with and not just "coloring outside the lines." Phrases like that can mean next to anything.
Italics: You're using hypothetical numbers to attempt to show that he actually lost money. If you can't see the problem with that, I'm not sure we can keep arguing.
Bold: Then you're not looking. His name has been mentioned at other schools.
Firing: Yeah, we got nailed by the NCAA. What did you expect to happen? The guy at the top always takes the fall, but that doesn't mean that it's right or that he shouldn't be given a second chance. A lot of very, very good coaches have rebounded. In Gross' case, the NCAA stuff was more bad luck than anything else. Some of it didn't even happen on his watch.

Listen Lael, TGD is not coming back. He played it fast and loose with the accounting and records. He spent more than he should have. I don't know what you do, but if I did the same thing in my job, I'd be out of that job in a heartbeat.

What other schools besides UC Davis (his alma mater) has he been mentioned with?

"The guy at the top always takes the fall". Bingo. At this level, you don't get a second chance at the same school. Maybe anywhere. Most likely, you have to take a step down.

He did a great job with Olympic sports (with a misstep here or there). Was instrumental in the move to the ACC. Great. I thank him for all of that.

He was relieved of command. He isn't coming back. Let it go.

Time to move on.

 

[oldpinepoint]

Underlined: No. Your supposed to tell me exactly what he did that you have a problem with and not just "coloring outside the lines." Phrases like that can mean next to anything.
Italics: You're using hypothetical numbers to attempt to show that he actually lost money. If you can't see the problem with that, I'm not sure we can keep arguing.
Bold: Then you're not looking. His name has been mentioned at other schools.
Firing: Yeah, we got nailed by the NCAA. What did you expect to happen? The guy at the top always takes the fall, but that doesn't mean that it's right or that he shouldn't be given a second chance. A lot of very, very good coaches have rebounded. In Gross' case, the NCAA stuff was more bad luck than anything else. Some of it didn't even happen on his watch.

Why are we talking about Gross, he has zero chance of being hired again full time. He did some good things and some not so good things. Let it go

 

[nzm136]

He spent more than he should have. I don't know what you do, but if I did the same thing in my job, I'd be out of that job in a heartbeat.

You randomly decreeing that he spent too much money doesn't make it so. And I don't know what you do for a living, but if you would be out of a job in a heartbeat for taking out debt, then you don't work in finance. Whether you like it or not, the guy rand a profitable AD. Yes, he had some lean years and spent money to make money, but that's how the world works.

I cannot emphasize the following point enough. We aren't in NYC. We can't just hit up deep pocketed local companies for a spike in donations to help smooth over expenses. That's why we have a rainy day fund.

I'll ask you this like I asked everyone else: where/when do you think that he spent too much money? What exactly do you think that he should have done differently?

 

[nzm136]

Why are we talking about Gross, he has zero chance of being hired again full time. He did some good things and some not so good things. Let it go

We're talking about him because I have yet to hear an argument against him that's based in facts and references specific reasons why he wasn't a great AD.

 

[orange79]

You randomly decreeing that he spent too much money doesn't make it so. And I don't know what you do for a living, but if you would be out of a job in a heartbeat for taking out debt, then you don't work in finance. Whether you like it or not, the guy rand a profitable AD. Yes, he had some lean years and spent money to make money, but that's how the world works.

I cannot emphasize the following point enough. We aren't in NYC. We can't just hit up deep pocketed local companies for a spike in donations to help smooth over expenses. That's why we have a rainy day fund.

You don't get it. You choose to ignore the reasons he was FIRED. I give up. He was fired for no reason. He should be made AD for Life.

I'm done here.

 

[nzm136]

You don't get it. You choose to ignore the reasons he was FIRED. I give up. He was fired for no reason. He should be made AD for Life.

I'm done here.

You have to list reasons for me to ignore them.

 

[rrlbees]

We're talking about him because I have yet to hear an argument against him that's based in facts and references specific reasons why he wasn't a great AD.

whether you like it or not, I gave you facts.

 

[AZOrange]

Not so fast, we have to vet (not like a dog, but we will be dog you with questions) you before you can waltz right into the office. Also, we have Tomcat nominated (he has promised a ginger in every hand at every game - top that promise!).

So I checked you Linked In file:

AZOrange
Education: Syracuse University (good so far!)
Location: AZ (Of course, every good CNYer heads south at some point - shows good reasoning ability)
Experience: Writer (lots of writing in the AD office - would have to agree no writing class papers, non-negotiable, all other writing is good)
Interests: Syracuse Sports (dude, you are on a roll!)
Making money (A must for a P5 member school)
Hates Georgetown (who doesn't, but still a prerequisite for any job on the hill. As a potential AD, this must be signed in blood.)
Enjoys Mocking Rutgers ('nuff said)
Dislikes: Unpainted benches in the Dome
Politicians who interfere with Syracuse U. expansion plans

OK, you are vetted. Forward your resume and salary demands to the office. Scooch can vouch for you. Tomcat will have competition. LET THE AD GAMES BEGIN!

Well done sir!

 

[nzm136]

whether you like it or not, I gave you facts.

No, you gave me vague opinions.

Here's are some specific facts:
* SU reported a $20 million surplus to the DoE in Gross' last year <-- I don't think that I can post links to other site on this forum, but you're free to check the respective sites. As you pointed out, finances are a responsibility of the AD.

*SU hired a number of coaches during DG's tenure that were and are still successful (the list of coaches is too long to list, but the results can be seen in the point below)

* SU is ranked #10 in the final winter directors' cup standings. SU is currently ranked #8 (men) and #5 (women) in the Capital One standings. <-- I don't think that I can post links to other site on this forum, but you're free to check the respective sites. Athletic performance is the other a responsibility of the AD.

*SU built the Melo center in 2009 for basketball. SU built an IPF in 2015. SU installed new FieldTurf in the Dome in 2005, and new LED displays in 2012. SU built a new weight room in 2005. SU installed new turf on Coyne field (field hockey) in 2005. SU installed new turf on the football practice fields in 2007-2008 (I can't find it, and I can't remember the exact year). SU updated Manley in 2010. SU upgraded the entire football facility in 2012 (I just closed the link, but I think it said 2012). <-- I don't think that I can post links to other site on this forum, but you're free to check googles. Athletic performance is the other a responsibility of the AD, and the following is opinion, but I don't think that it's controversial - facilities are integral to maintaining athletic success.

*SU's "New York's College Team" campaign (along with advertisements in Yankee Stadium) were followed by a similar campaign from UConn, Rutgers, SJU, SUNY Buffalo, and the B1G. <-- I don't think that I can post links to other site on this forum, but you're free to check googles. Athletic performance is the other a responsibility of the AD, and the following is opinion, but I don't think that it's controversial - brand equity/name recognition is integral to maintaining athletic success.

*Wegmans is the largest private employer in the Syracuse area (as per the google search that I just ran - but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). That means that there are zero local companies that are truly big. Therefore, we can't lean on local businesses like some of our competitors can, and we can't smooth revenues/expenses like our competition.

*SU athletics did lose a couple of million early during the GRob years. And, although I can't find the article, I remember it being $3-4 million.

*DG did hire GRob, which was a mistake. This isn't a fact, but I don't think that anyone will argue.

*SU did get hammered by the NCAA (fact), but I think that the penalties were unnecessarily harsh (opinion) and partially beyond DG's control (fact).

Statements like "there was panic in the office when KS took over" are 1) vague (Who was panicking in the office? How are you defining panic?), 2) unsubstantiated (no proof), and almost certainly opinion. Statements like "coloring outside the lines" are incredibly vague and purely opinion. That could mean virtually anything. Statements like "he spent too much" are your opinion. Given our apparent RoI, I'd be willing to bet that we beat most schools. If that's the case, then barring an unreasonably stringent definitions of "too much," I'd say that you're probably wrong.

See the difference? I can reference specific actions (building specific facilities, hiring specific coaches, etc.), and I can give links (or at least tell you how to find the info ) for almost all of it (unless otherwise indicated). And, Those facts aren't the alpha-omega, but they do create strong evidence that DG achieved widespread success, built a structure to maintain success, and successfully managed finances when his tenure is taken as a whole. If you'll agree that an AD's duties are to 1) ensure that his/her teams enjoy success, 2) maintain an atmosphere of success, 3) and generate sufficient revenue to cover costs, I think that you will have to also agree that there's a strong case that DG was a great AD. He wasn't perfect (see the last couple of bullets), but I don't see a particularly strong argument against the guy.

 

[rrlbees]

No, you gave me vague opinions. Here's are some specific facts: * SU reported a $20 million surplus to the DoE in Gross' last year <-- I don't think that I can post links to other site on this forum, but you're free to check the respective sites. As you pointed out, finances are a responsibility of the AD. *SU hired a number of coaches during DG's tenure that were and are still successful (the list of coaches is too long to list, but the results can be seen in the point below) * SU is ranked #10 in the final winter directors' cup standings. SU is currently ranked #8 (men) and #5 (women) in the Capital One standings. <-- I don't think that I can post links to other site on this forum, but you're free to check the respective sites. Athletic performance is the other a responsibility of the AD. *SU built the Melo center in 2009 for basketball. SU built an IPF in 2015. SU installed new FieldTurf in the Dome in 2005, and new LED displays in 2012. SU built a new weight room in 2005. SU installed new turf on Coyne field (field hockey) in 2005. SU installed new turf on the football practice fields in 2007-2008 (I can't find it, and I can't remember the exact year). SU updated Manley in 2010. SU upgraded the entire football facility in 2012 (I just closed the link, but I think it said 2012). <-- I don't think that I can post links to other site on this forum, but you're free to check googles. Athletic performance is the other a responsibility of the AD, and the following is opinion, but I don't think that it's controversial - facilities are integral to maintaining athletic success. *SU's "New York's College Team" campaign (along with advertisements in Yankee Stadium) were followed by a similar campaign from UConn, Rutgers, SJU, SUNY Buffalo, and the B1G. <-- I don't think that I can post links to other site on this forum, but you're free to check googles. Athletic performance is the other a responsibility of the AD, and the following is opinion, but I don't think that it's controversial - brand equity/name recognition is integral to maintaining athletic success. *Wegmans is the largest private employer in the Syracuse area (as per the google search that I just ran - but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). That means that there are zero local companies that are truly big. Therefore, we can't lean on local businesses like some of our competitors can, and we can't smooth revenues/expenses like our competition. *SU athletics did lose a couple of million early during the GRob years. And, although I can't find the article, I remember it being $3-4 million. *DG did hire GRob, which was a mistake. This isn't a fact, but I don't think that anyone will argue. *SU did get hammered by the NCAA (fact), but I think that the penalties were unnecessarily harsh (opinion) and partially beyond DG's control (fact). Statements like "there was panic in the office when KS took over" are 1) vague (Who was panicking in the office? How are you defining panic?), 2) unsubstantiated (no proof), and almost certainly opinion. Statements like "coloring outside the lines" are incredibly vague and purely opinion. That could mean virtually anything. Statements like "he spent too much" are your opinion. Given our apparent RoI, I'd be willing to bet that we beat most schools. If that's the case, then barring an unreasonably stringent definitions of "too much," I'd say that you're probably wrong. See the difference? I can reference specific actions (building specific facilities, hiring specific coaches, etc.), and I can give links (or at least tell you how to find the info ) for almost all of it (unless otherwise indicated). And, Those facts aren't the alpha-omega, but they do create strong evidence that DG achieved widespread success, built a structure to maintain success, and successfully managed finances when his tenure is taken as a whole. If you'll agree that an AD's duties are to 1) ensure that his/her teams enjoy success, 2) maintain an atmosphere of success, 3) and generate sufficient revenue to cover costs, I think that you will have to also agree that there's a strong case that DG was a great AD. He wasn't perfect (see the last couple of bullets), but I don't see a particularly strong argument against the guy.

You want people's names and numbers. You aren't getting those. He was fired for the right reasons. Just because you don't know doesn't make it false or opinion.

I'm done.

 

[nzm136]

You want people's names and numbers. You aren't getting those. He was fired for the right reasons. Just because you don't know doesn't make it false or opinion.

I'm done.

Great. At least we now know where we both stand and can stop the guessing game.

You have (or are at least willing to share) zero evidence and you apparently can't name a single specific thing that he did wrong (other than GRob - I'll give you that one on the house). You're right in that my lack of knowledge about your vague allusions doesn't make your statements opinion. However, your repeated lack of facts does.

And there are a number of reasons to fire someone that don't (or at least shouldn't) block them from being rehired.

 

[OrangePA]

Working in conference administration is different than being in a school's athletic department. Not the same [although this is more relevant vis a vis our vacancy than his later work for UA, IMO].

Interfacing with college athletic departments is not the same as coordinating the operations of an athletic department.

The duties he had jurisdictional responsibility for as an assistant director of football operations--grades, study hall, travel arrangements, sports camps, practice schedules, interaction between players and coaches--have very little overlap with what an athletic department does, other than at the governance level.

I'm really not sure what part of this you don't understand. His job responsibilities and roles, to date, have not included--you know--actually working in a collegiate athletic department, let alone at a P5 level institution.

That doesn't mean that he couldn't learn this stuff. But today, based upon his experience, he probably isn't the most qualified candidate because his experience doesn't actually involve working in an athletic department at the college level. This isn't an entry level job where somebody has the capacity to learn on-the-job.

I just see it differently than you do.

He did work in two athletic departments and worked directly with many athletic departments addressing the very issues he would face as an athletic director.

I never suggested that he would be the most qualified candidate. If we can hire the most qualified person for the job I'm all for that.

Who would that be?

 

[OrangePA]

Syracuse guys will always endorse Syracuse guys. They aren't going to endorse the Bucknell AD.

And each of those guys are also media people who just don't see and truly witness what an AD NEEDS to do to be successful. Tirico has the most insight...but he's not in there either.

Whoever was envolved in the search to find Coyle - which concluded less than a year ago - should be immediately on the clock. If a guy leaves quickly, let's not shrivel to only think only a Syracuse guy would want to be here.

Why will Syracuse guys like Tirico, Thamel and McDonough always endorse a Syracuse guy?

 

[OrangePA]

Until recently we've reserved our on the job training roles for head coach of the football program.

Jake Crouthamel?

 

[TheCusian]

We're talking about him because I have yet to hear an argument against him that's based in facts and references specific reasons why he wasn't a great AD.

1. He spent more than he took in. The books were a mess, so he wasn't doing a good job tracking the spending. If a new chancellor is brought in during a financial mess at the university scale - he's going to want to clean up everything.

2. While I agree that many other schools are getting away with far more, he personally was named in the NCAA Fab Melo stuff. It was hugely embarrassing for the university and resulted in punishment.

3. Football drives the bus at major universities. He made 1 horrible hire that set the school on the worst run in its existence. Marrone was a good hire (not great, good) and he bolted in part because of issues with the leadership. Shafer got a raw deal in some respects, but eventually the w-l record catches up with you despite the reasons. And that's what got Gross: the w-l record in football, despite the reasons.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

1. He spent more than he took in. The books were a mess, so he wasn't doing a good job tracking the spending. If a new chancellor is brought in during a financial mess at the university scale - he's going to want to clean up everything.

2. While I agree that many other schools are getting away with far more, he personally was named in the NCAA Fab Melo stuff. It was hugely embarrassing for the university and resulted in punishment.

3. Football drives the bus at major universities. He made 1 horrible hire that set the school on the worst run in its existence. Marrone was a good hire (not great, good) and he bolted in part because of issues with the leadership. Shafer got a raw deal in some respects, but eventually the w-l record catches up with you despite the reasons. And that's what got Gross: the w-l record in football, despite the reasons.

The spending was done in large part to try to catch up on what hadn't been spent by Jake and Lou.
The turf practice fields, the new turf in the Dome, which Jake said could not be done because of the basketball court, hiring good coaches that gave lesser sports a chance to win.
The Fab thing falls on him, but he is the reason for the overall success of the SU programs.

 

[GoSU96]

The spending was done in large part to try to catch up on what hadn't been spent by Jake and Lou.
The turf practice fields, the new turf in the Dome, which Jake said could not be done because of the basketball court, hiring good coaches that gave lesser sports a chance to win.
The Fab thing falls on him, but he is the reason for the overall success of the SU programs.

No, the argument against field turf at the time was you couldn't run track and field events, nothing to do with basketball.

BTW how many track meets have they run in the dome since?

 

[TheCusian]

The spending was done in large part to try to catch up on what hadn't been spent by Jake and Lou. The turf practice fields, the new turf in the Dome, which Jake said could not be done because of the basketball court, hiring good coaches that gave lesser sports a chance to win. The Fab thing falls on him, but he is the reason for the overall success of the SU programs.

I know... But if you're behind and need to spend you get creative (which he did), but you can't let the books become a mess. It undercuts your "creativity".

In arguing why he got fired, I purposefully left of the reasons to retain him. He deserves a ton of credit for our recent success in non-rev sports, as well as a few big projects, and the ACC deal.

 

[Scooch]

Thread summary: Lengthy discussions about two people who shouldn't be our next AD.