The CheckerBoard

This is not outrageous at all. Academics does not need to support athletics at UT, especially now that athletics is not supporting academics.

The AD needs to pay its own way and if Jones can win some games, it will.

Is there a history of the UTAD taking money from the academic side? Seems like sour grapes stemming from rescinding the year gift from the AD to the school. Sometimes you have to give to get. If the Cheek administration is unable to realize that a strong athletic program is exceptionally beneficial to the university then it is time for him to move on.

The idea itself is not outrageous, but I don't see the benefit in publicly pronouncing it during a time when the relationship is very fragile. A public university should not have to use state funds to frequently bail out athletics; however, why did UT go out of its way to announce a complete cutoff during a very tenuous time? That's poor PR.

I agree. He is also being disingenuous because he knows the Athletic Department is about to reap extra money from the soon to be announced new TV deals. The statement appeases the academic side and gets a pound of flesh back for Maisel's statement (an obvious plant) but really is unnecessary BS. In truth, he'll do what the BoT and big money will tell him to do.

State funds haven't been used, they just aren't getting 18 million handed to them over the next three years like they always have and obviously some don't like it but athletics brings in that money. The more successful athletics are equals more money for academics, stupid argument.

Frankly, I don't want one penny of academic money going toward athletics. The primary mission of the University is to educate, despite what some seem to think around here. Having said that, I think its time for athletics to stop funding the academic side while they are at a financial disadvantage relative to the other SEC schools. If we had strong leadership at the top levels of University management they would step in and get everyone on the same page and end this bickering. Unfortunately for our University, that is not happening.

No need for name calling. If I know bavw he is pointing out the obvious. No funds from academics for athletics. The counterpoint being it cuts both ways. However, he is capable of clarifying for himself, if he feels it's necessary.

Fulmer does not have the academic qualifications to be Chancellor. Cheek has the academic qualifications but he has close to zero leadership skills. We would be the laughing stock of the country if we named a former coach as the Chancellor.

That's not the point though Rockytop... The point is that the title of this article alone suggests that the university is "bailing" out our AD when in fact they are not giving the AD any of its own money, they are simply foregoing the annual donation that they REQUIRED in the past. I think Cimino's comments try to paint this situation in a false light.

I agree that our university should not subsidize our AD with state funding. But that's the whole point, it's not and never has and this article tries to suggest that it has in the past.

"UT: No More Funding Aid for Sports" "More" is the key word there. As if to suggest that the university has funded the athletic department before and no longer will and that is completely and utterly FALSE. The university is simply allowing the AD to keep what is rightfully theirs for the next 3 years to try and stop the bleeding. I would hardly consider that to be "the university is funding the AD." It's not.

And Cimino's pompous, arrogant statement of "We have done all we are going to do" just illustrates the inherent disconnect between the two parties involved and shows no signs of things improving in the near future. It kills me why these academia's seem to think that the success of the university and the success of the AD are and/or HAVE TO BE mutually exclusive.

This article frustrates me to no end.

A couple years? More like every year. The misnomer here is that the school is giving funds to the UTAD. When in reality, the school has been using the UTAD like a college freshman using daddy's ATM card at 1am on a Saturday night. This recent $18 million is just what the UTAD has "given" to the university the last 3 years. There's no telling what else the UTAD has "gifted" over the last 15 years.

It's an asinine notion for the university to even hint that state funds have ever gone to the UTAD.

I think you may want to re-read the original article. My comment has nothing at all to do with the AD paying 6 mil per year to the school or temporarily stopping those payments.

No I agree Academics should not fund athletics but they don't, it's the other way around so for this statement to even be made by someone with UT is crazy. They've done all they're going to do and what is that give money back that wasn't theirs. That's what I meant was stupid, makes no sense