Re: UAH 2011-2012 - The Farewell Tour Kicks Off Tomorrow
The UAH athletic department released their "review". If anyone wasn't convinced this decision wasn't made long before this "review" was conducted, one read of this should do the trick.
http://www.uahchargers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1925&Itemid=330
Note that no one had the guts to put their name to this. If out side resources were used, there should be contracts, statements of work, and other documentation that shows what was expected to be produced in order for them to be paid.
And if any student turned this in as a research/term paper they would get a failing grade. Very few references/citations provided, and those that are there are woefully inadequate - simply say the source is the NCAA. It follows none of the constructs used in writing - no statement of the objective, little to no benefit/loss analysis, no alternatives identified/reviewed, no real analysis of the overall performance of the athletic department (why isn't there more fundraising, what could have been done better, etc.), nothing to support the rationale for their recommedations.
My opinion of the "objective": Give me reasons to cut hockey.
The UAH athletic department released their "review". If anyone wasn't convinced this decision wasn't made long before this "review" was conducted, one read of this should do the trick.
http://www.uahchargers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1925&Itemid=330
Note that no one had the guts to put their name to this. If out side resources were used, there should be contracts, statements of work, and other documentation that shows what was expected to be produced in order for them to be paid.
And if any student turned this in as a research/term paper they would get a failing grade. Very few references/citations provided, and those that are there are woefully inadequate - simply say the source is the NCAA. It follows none of the constructs used in writing - no statement of the objective, little to no benefit/loss analysis, no alternatives identified/reviewed, no real analysis of the overall performance of the athletic department (why isn't there more fundraising, what could have been done better, etc.), nothing to support the rationale for their recommedations.
My opinion of the "objective": Give me reasons to cut hockey.