mbBear said:
calumnus said:
mbBear said:
calumnus said:
mbBear said:
Econ141 said:
Those who say Lyons is a Cal football fan because he attended the Big Game in 1982. Is there any evidence outside of one data point?
A Cal football fan would have canned Knowlton so fast the Jet would be jealous.
There was a conference call last week with Lyons and Knowlton, and the biggest Cal donors. Yes, there is evidence.
Is Lyons receiving any feedback that the donor calls might be more successful if Knowlton wasn't on them any more?
I'm hearing about the call from someone I am very close to, so not verbatim. My takeaway is that Lyons set the tone and most of the mandates, and Knowlton is there to carry out those directives.
What Knowlton thinks about the number of sports is irrelevant in a world where the men's sports have to be fully endowed to exist(yes, that was said). What Knowlton thinks about the importance of football isn't all that important in a world where the President of the university thinks that sport (and men's basketball) are HIGHLY important to the missions of the University OVERALL.
From how it was laid out to me: What happens next for Cal Athletics has very little to do with Jim Knowlton...if it saves money to have him be a lacky, then fine...not saying for a second that he should stay, or lobbying, or anything else I might be accused of....but if he is all about the status quo, he won't be around anyway....
However, to satisfy Title IX and not put the department in the red, a men's sport needs to be not only fully endowed, but also support an equivalent number of women's scholarships.
if we only have men's sports that are fully endowed (and that means operational costs too) that puts less strain on the revenue sports than it does now....
Or are you saying that what was said on the call?
No, I was not on the call and I believe the report of what was said. What I'm saying that is what is needed from a budgetary standpoint. Every men's scholarship given requires an additional women's scholarship be given. It is not enough to fully fund the men's scholarships if it generates an equivalent cost that is not covered.
For example, if the budget is balanced and you add a new men's sport, even if all the costs (coaches, scholarships, etc) for the men are covered by donors, you will need to add an equivalent women's sport to comply with Title IX and now you are operating a huge deficit. Maintaining a current men's sport is the same economic issue as adding a men's sport.
Football is not going to be able to support anything more than an equivalent number of wonen's scholarships going forward. Besides the greatly reduced revenues we may need to pay the players from those revenues.
Every other men's sport should be paired with an equivalent women's sport and the donors should be told that BOTH men's and women's sides need to be fully funded for them not to be BOTH on the chopping block.
Donors thinking they can save a men's sport by fully funding only it is part of the financial problem we are in and is only going to lead to anger and recrimination later if they need to be cut due to budgetary issues.
If that reality was not stated in the call then Lyons and Knowlton (no surprise) are not yet dealing with what is about to hit us.