http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/14/long-term-departmental-problem-probe-cal-athletics-indefinite-federal-title-ix-monitoring/

This is bad news. But I can't help thinking it was the IAD's own fault. Leaving the field hockey team hanging was a bad decision. Our burden just got heavier.

okaydo said:

---

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/14/long-term-departmental-problem-probe-cal-athletics-indefinite-federal-title-ix-monitoring/

---

Well, the decision not to listen to Barbour regarding Maxwell has been extremely costly. That was vintage Cal. Don't take a decision seriously because you don't recognize the issue when someone is warning you.

Quote:

---

"The amount of money the school spends on women's sports is nothing compared to football, baseball and men's basketball," said Nancy Hogshead-Makar, CEO of Champion Women, a national Title IX lawyer and three-time Olympic gold medal winner. She added that female student-athletes at UC Berkeley lose out on over $2 million in scholarships each year because they are women.

---

There is an obvious solution to this. The amount of money Cal spends on football dwarfs all other sports. Easy back of the napkin math says that football scholarships cost way more than $2M. Cal should drop football. It eliminates the issue entirely. See how easy things are when you don't have to consider revenue generation?

Perhaps the university spends more on football and men's basketball because those two sports make money. From an economic standpoint, women's sports won't have the same financial resources until a much larger segment of the population steps up and pays money to watch the women's teams play. And while I'm sure all of Cal's women athletes can kick my butt in any athletic competition, that doesn't mean I will pay money to watch them play...

OaktownBear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/14/long-term-departmental-problem-probe-cal-athletics-indefinite-federal-title-ix-monitoring/

---

Well, the decision not to listen to Barbour regarding Maxwell has been extremely costly. That was vintage Cal. Don't take a decision seriously because you don't recognize the issue when someone is warning you.

---

This all seemingly goes back to accepting $150k/yr from rugby so they could get preferred use of witter. Not the smartest thing to agree to by whomever was in charge.

I wouldn't say Sandy was without fault for Maxwell either - Wilton claims she waffled on the decision and all failed to find a suitable field hockey location (which should have been planned from day 1). And all involved failed to recognize the Title IX implications of making Field Hockey travel to Furd to practice and play. Just mind boggling if you ask me.

ColoradoBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/14/long-term-departmental-problem-probe-cal-athletics-indefinite-federal-title-ix-monitoring/

---

Well, the decision not to listen to Barbour regarding Maxwell has been extremely costly. That was vintage Cal. Don't take a decision seriously because you don't recognize the issue when someone is warning you.

---

This all seemingly goes back to accepting $150k/yr from rugby so they could get preferred use of witter. Not the smartest thing to agree to by whomever was in charge.

I wouldn't say Sandy was without fault for Maxwell either - Wilton claims she waffled on the decision and all failed to find a suitable field hockey location. And all involved failed to recognize the Title IX implications of making Field Hockey travel to Furd to practice and play. Just mind boggling if you ask me.

---

I think it's pretty clear blaming Sandy or Williams or any AD is ignoring the real problem, which was the last two (at least) Chancellors who ran the sh*t show. This was a University problem that the University messed up completely.

Is it a coincidence that Barbour supposedly left a steaming pile at Cal and goes to PSU (which really WAS a steaming pile that no AD wanted to touch) and is suddenly a genius? Anyone think the inability of Williams to make timely decisions (or any moderately difficult decision at all) falls on him after everything we have seen from Dirks? Yes, I do feel that Williams was Dirks' right-hand man, and that's not at all a compliment, but ultimately whose fault is that?

Fish always rots from the head down. Always. Blaming the AD for the University's glaring failures is giving a pass to people who deserve the Alumni's full wrath. The failures of Barbour and Williams are symptoms, not the disease. With Napolitano still in charge of UC, I'm not sure we are out of the woods here.

Uthaithani said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/14/long-term-departmental-problem-probe-cal-athletics-indefinite-federal-title-ix-monitoring/

---

Well, the decision not to listen to Barbour regarding Maxwell has been extremely costly. That was vintage Cal. Don't take a decision seriously because you don't recognize the issue when someone is warning you.

---

This all seemingly goes back to accepting $150k/yr from rugby so they could get preferred use of witter. Not the smartest thing to agree to by whomever was in charge.

I wouldn't say Sandy was without fault for Maxwell either - Wilton claims she waffled on the decision and all failed to find a suitable field hockey location. And all involved failed to recognize the Title IX implications of making Field Hockey travel to Furd to practice and play. Just mind boggling if you ask me.

---

I think it's pretty clear blaming Sandy or Williams or any AD is ignoring the real problem, which was the last two (at least) Chancellors who ran the sh*t show. This was a University problem that the University messed up completely.

Is it a coincidence that Barbour supposedly left a steaming pile at Cal and goes to PSU (which really WAS a steaming pile that no AD wanted to touch) and is suddenly a genius? Anyone think the inability of Williams to make timely decisions (or any moderately difficult decision at all) falls on him after everything we have seen from Dirks? Yes, I do feel that Williams was Dirks' right-hand man, and that's not at all a compliment, but ultimately whose fault is that?

Fish always rots from the head down. Always. Blaming the AD for the University's glaring failures is giving a pass to people who deserve the Alumni's full wrath. The failures of Barbour and Williams are symptoms, not the disease. With Napolitano still in charge of UC, I'm not sure we are out of the woods here.

---

One of the big issues that has been in play with Cal sports for decades is how ultimately too many in the administration just don't take it seriously. I'm not even talking about taking winning seriously. I'm talking about management. When we got nailed on the academic fraud charge under Holmoe, the football team had reported the issue. The compliance officer was too afraid to stand up to the professor. Between that and not being able to simply account for hotel charges, we got hit with lack of institutional control. Which is exactly what it was, only most schools lack the institutional control to stop illegal activity. We lack the institutional control to competently manage the program.

So somebody comes around saying that if we get rid of a field hockey field, we need to replace it and it isn't just a matter of finding a patch of grass somewhere, and our administration can't be bothered with it. Look, I don't care about field hockey either and I think if it requires an $8M field to play, it is a stupid sport to have, but I do care about the potential economic and reputational consequences of not simply finding out what the issue is and managing it.

Cal_79 said:

---

...... And while I'm sure all of Cal's women athletes can kick my butt in any athletic competition, that doesn't mean I will pay money to watch them play...

---

That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.
You sir, are an ass.

Bears2thDoc said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

...... And while I'm sure all of Cal's women athletes can kick my butt in any athletic competition, that doesn't mean I will pay money to watch them play...

---

That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.
You sir, are an ass.

---

Does this mean if I do not have season tickets to women's sports like I do for men's football and basketball, I am a sexist? I disagree, but this is Berkeley.

But there is this too: Study claims hidden sexism makes women's sports seem dull.
http://nypost.com/2017/09/13/study-claims-hidden-sexism-makes-womens-sports-seem-dull/

Uthaithani said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/14/long-term-departmental-problem-probe-cal-athletics-indefinite-federal-title-ix-monitoring/

---

Well, the decision not to listen to Barbour regarding Maxwell has been extremely costly. That was vintage Cal. Don't take a decision seriously because you don't recognize the issue when someone is warning you.

---

This all seemingly goes back to accepting $150k/yr from rugby so they could get preferred use of witter. Not the smartest thing to agree to by whomever was in charge.

I wouldn't say Sandy was without fault for Maxwell either - Wilton claims she waffled on the decision and all failed to find a suitable field hockey location. And all involved failed to recognize the Title IX implications of making Field Hockey travel to Furd to practice and play. Just mind boggling if you ask me.

---

I think it's pretty clear blaming Sandy or Williams or any AD is ignoring the real problem, which was the last two (at least) Chancellors who ran the sh*t show. This was a University problem that the University messed up completely.

Is it a coincidence that Barbour supposedly left a steaming pile at Cal and goes to PSU (which really WAS a steaming pile that no AD wanted to touch) and is suddenly a genius? Anyone think the inability of Williams to make timely decisions (or any moderately difficult decision at all) falls on him after everything we have seen from Dirks? Yes, I do feel that Williams was Dirks' right-hand man, and that's not at all a compliment, but ultimately whose fault is that?

Fish always rots from the head down. Always. Blaming the AD for the University's glaring failures is giving a pass to people who deserve the Alumni's full wrath. The failures of Barbour and Williams are symptoms, not the disease. With Napolitano still in charge of UC, I'm not sure we are out of the woods here.

---

It'a clear that Dirks was the Bob Bockrath of Chancellors.

SonomanA1 said:

---

Bears2thDoc said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

...... And while I'm sure all of Cal's women athletes can kick my butt in any athletic competition, that doesn't mean I will pay money to watch them play...

---

That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.
You sir, are an ass.

---

Does this mean if I do not have season tickets to women's sports like I do for men's football and basketball, I am a sexist? I disagree, but this is Berkeley.

But there is this too: Study claims hidden sexism makes women's sports seem dull.
http://nypost.com/2017/09/13/study-claims-hidden-sexism-makes-womens-sports-seem-dull/

---

No....
However, watching and paying, compared to watching and refusing to pay because it's women participating is.

Bears2thDoc said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

...... And while I'm sure all of Cal's women athletes can kick my butt in any athletic competition, that doesn't mean I will pay money to watch them play...

---

That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.
You sir, are an ass.

---

How is it sexist? You think its "ist" to not have enough interest in ______ to pay to watch it?

Last I looked, almost zero non-revenue sports have significant revenue generation. The big chunk of them that are claiming they should be treated like they are revenue sports are womens teams, so that is what is being discussed. No **** I wont pay money to watch them play, almost no one will. My cousin started for Cal Baseball for two years and I went to just 3 games. I wont watch that either. But we are not talking about "equality" related to opportunity of male baseball players. When we were people said that same thing; "No one will watch it or support it; cut it." That wasnt sexist.

We are, for some odd reason, obsessed with treating women as though they ARE revenue generators, comparing them to the two sports people WILL pay to watch.

So, no, I wont pay to watch them. Almost no one will pay to watch them. That's why they get the title of "non-revenue" sports. No one watched men's gymnastics. That's not sexist. That's because it was just uninteresting... Does Cal have that team? Does Cal have a women's gymnastics team? These men and women are all good athletes, and NO ONE watches them play, and even fewer would pay for the opportunity.

Dont confuse conversation and logic with "ist."

Bears2thDoc said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

Bears2thDoc said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

...... And while I'm sure all of Cal's women athletes can kick my butt in any athletic competition, that doesn't mean I will pay money to watch them play...

---

That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.
You sir, are an ass.

---

Does this mean if I do not have season tickets to women's sports like I do for men's football and basketball, I am a sexist? I disagree, but this is Berkeley.

But there is this too: Study claims hidden sexism makes women's sports seem dull.
http://nypost.com/2017/09/13/study-claims-hidden-sexism-makes-womens-sports-seem-dull/

---

No....
However, watching and paying, compared to watching and refusing to pay because it's women participating is.

---

Thats not at all what he said, though. He just said he wouldn't pay to watch them. An opinion that is held by nearly all of the world (given that the national revenue generation for most of those sports probably doesn't touch a D1A midmajor football single game concessions take).

Bears2thDoc said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

Bears2thDoc said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

...... And while I'm sure all of Cal's women athletes can kick my butt in any athletic competition, that doesn't mean I will pay money to watch them play...

---

That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.
You sir, are an ass.

---

Does this mean if I do not have season tickets to women's sports like I do for men's football and basketball, I am a sexist? I disagree, but this is Berkeley.

But there is this too: Study claims hidden sexism makes women's sports seem dull.
http://nypost.com/2017/09/13/study-claims-hidden-sexism-makes-womens-sports-seem-dull/

---

No....
However, watching and paying, compared to watching and refusing to pay because it's women participating is.

---

No one is saying he's refusing to pay because the athletes are women.
Let's not pretend the display of athleticism is equivalent.

LunchTime said:

---

Bears2thDoc said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

Bears2thDoc said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

...... And while I'm sure all of Cal's women athletes can kick my butt in any athletic competition, that doesn't mean I will pay money to watch them play...

---

That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.
You sir, are an ass.

---

Does this mean if I do not have season tickets to women's sports like I do for men's football and basketball, I am a sexist? I disagree, but this is Berkeley.

But there is this too: Study claims hidden sexism makes women's sports seem dull.
http://nypost.com/2017/09/13/study-claims-hidden-sexism-makes-womens-sports-seem-dull/

---

No....
However, watching and paying, compared to watching and refusing to pay because it's women participating is.

---

Thats not at all what he said, though. He just said he wouldn't pay to watch them. An opinion that is held by nearly all of the world (given that the national revenue generation for most of those sports probably doesn't touch a D1A midmajor football single game concessions take).

---

Hmmmm......
"I will pay to watch men play sports, I will not pay to watch women play sports"
If you can't see a problem with this statement, then I can't help you.

Bears2thDoc said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Bears2thDoc said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

Bears2thDoc said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

...... And while I'm sure all of Cal's women athletes can kick my butt in any athletic competition, that doesn't mean I will pay money to watch them play...

---

That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.
You sir, are an ass.

---

Does this mean if I do not have season tickets to women's sports like I do for men's football and basketball, I am a sexist? I disagree, but this is Berkeley.

But there is this too: Study claims hidden sexism makes women's sports seem dull.
http://nypost.com/2017/09/13/study-claims-hidden-sexism-makes-womens-sports-seem-dull/

---

No....
However, watching and paying, compared to watching and refusing to pay because it's women participating is.

---

Thats not at all what he said, though. He just said he wouldn't pay to watch them. An opinion that is held by nearly all of the world (given that the national revenue generation for most of those sports probably doesn't touch a D1A midmajor football single game concessions take).

---

Hmmmm......
"I will pay to watch men play sports, I will not pay to watch women play sports"
If you can't see a problem with this statement, then I can't help you.

---

Maybe you can help yourself and reread it leaving your obvious bias at the gate?

Quote:

---

Perhaps the university spends more on football and men's basketball because those two sports make money. From an economic standpoint, women's sports won't have the same financial resources until a much larger segment of the population steps up and pays money to watch the women's teams play. And while I'm sure all of Cal's women athletes can kick my butt in any athletic competition, that doesn't mean I will pay money to watch them play...

---

What you claim was said was never said... Might want to think about why your mind thinks it was.

Bears2thDoc said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Bears2thDoc said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

Bears2thDoc said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

...... And while I'm sure all of Cal's women athletes can kick my butt in any athletic competition, that doesn't mean I will pay money to watch them play...

---

That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.
You sir, are an ass.

---

Does this mean if I do not have season tickets to women's sports like I do for men's football and basketball, I am a sexist? I disagree, but this is Berkeley.

But there is this too: Study claims hidden sexism makes women's sports seem dull.
http://nypost.com/2017/09/13/study-claims-hidden-sexism-makes-womens-sports-seem-dull/

---

No....
However, watching and paying, compared to watching and refusing to pay because it's women participating is.

---

Thats not at all what he said, though. He just said he wouldn't pay to watch them. An opinion that is held by nearly all of the world (given that the national revenue generation for most of those sports probably doesn't touch a D1A midmajor football single game concessions take).

---

Hmmmm......
"I will pay to watch men play sports, I will not pay to watch women play sports"
If you can't see a problem with this statement, then I can't help you.

---

What's your lifetime expenditure on tickets for watching men's sports vs. women's sports? 100:1 ratio?

Always nice to have another high level debate on the old growler.

The "resolution agreement" is truly amazing. I understand equal access and facilities, but how does Cal "prove it brands and publicizes men's and women's sports equally, and if it does not, it is required to make and implement a plan to do so"? And, even if that can be proved, why would Cal want to do so - should Women's field hockey receive equal publicity Cal Football? No rational business person would make that choice.

This is classic government overreach - the OCR has done this on many fronts - and I'm sure Cal was only too eager to agree. Basically, OCR gets to monitor these things forever.

Dumbest statement in the article: "The amount of money the school spends on women's sports is nothing compared to football, baseball and men's basketball," said Nancy Hogshead-Makar, CEO of Champion Women, a national Title IX lawyer and three-time Olympic gold medal winner. Um - revenues matter (not just expenditures).

Cal should satisfy Title IX by refusing to make gender distinctions and declaring that all sports are co-ed. Or better yet, let all athletes unnecessarily and improvidently "assigned male gender at birth" self-identify as woman. Title IX problem solved.

I do not think anyone read my link: Study claims hidden sexism makes women's sports seem dull.

All of you are guilty including me of 20th Century thinking in the 21st Century! What will you do to correct this?

ColoradoBear said:

---

What's your lifetime expenditure on tickets for watching men's sports vs. women's sports? 100:1 rati

---

Lol!!!
hard to say......
55 seasons of Cal Football and maybe a third of that mens basketball, some baseball and some tournament games (soccer, rugby, etc), a handful of MLB, NFL, NHL and NBA, ....lets say 550 male games paid for .
13 seasons of womens BB, assorted sports tournament games, World Cup Skiing, BoW Tennis....lets say 175 events paid, and another 150 unpaid, softball, soccer, swimming, gymnastics, LAX, Field Hockey
Paid ratio +550/175 ......
looks about like 3:1
Cheers!
Go Bears!!

Bottom line: get on to prong 1 ASAP. If essentially every other power 5 conference program can do it, Cal has no excuses. This is so obvious for so many reasons.

Cal_79 said:

---

Perhaps the university spends more on football and men's basketball because those two sports make money. From an economic standpoint, women's sports won't have the same financial resources until a much larger segment of the population steps up and pays money to watch the women's teams play. And while I'm sure all of Cal's women athletes can kick my butt in any athletic competition, that doesn't mean I will pay money to watch them play...

---

Nothing you mention has anything to do with Title IX. You want to wage your war against the Title IX windmill, knock yourself out, but dealing with Title IX rules and guidelines is what needs to be done, whether you like a woman's sport or not.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Bottom line: get on to prong 1 ASAP. If essentially every other power 5 conference program can do it, Cal has no excuses. This is so obvious for so many reasons.

---

This. We can't afford the prong we're on, especially since it's basically a completely subjective evaluation. Better to bit the bullet, get on Prong 1, and make whatever men's cuts need to be made to do so, in turn allowing some women's cuts as well.

Bears2thDoc said:

---

SonomanA1 said:

---

Bears2thDoc said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

...... And while I'm sure all of Cal's women athletes can kick my butt in any athletic competition, that doesn't mean I will pay money to watch them play...

---

That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.
You sir, are an ass.

---

Does this mean if I do not have season tickets to women's sports like I do for men's football and basketball, I am a sexist? I disagree, but this is Berkeley.

But there is this too: Study claims hidden sexism makes women's sports seem dull.
http://nypost.com/2017/09/13/study-claims-hidden-sexism-makes-womens-sports-seem-dull/

---

No....
However, watching and paying, compared to watching and refusing to pay because it's women participating is.

---

Dude, quit while you're behind. Many of us have given women's sports a very honest "go" and find them uninteresting. You got a problem with that?

Bears2thDoc said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Bears2thDoc said:

---

No....
However, watching and paying, compared to watching and refusing to pay because it's women participating is.

---

Thats not at all what he said, though. He just said he wouldn't pay to watch them. An opinion that is held by nearly all of the world (given that the national revenue generation for most of those sports probably doesn't touch a D1A midmajor football single game concessions take).

---

Hmmmm......
"I will pay to watch men play sports, I will not pay to watch women play sports"
If you can't see a problem with this statement, then I can't help you.

---

I follow our women's basketball team and go to their game vs SC every year. If I had the time I'd probably follow women's tennis and t&f .

Fyght4Cal said:

---

I follow our women's basketball team and go to their game vs SC every year. If I had the time I'd probably follow women's tennis and t&f .

---

The problems are that: (i) there are too few people like you who attend womens sports or want to do so; and (ii) even someone like you (who has an interest), attends very few actual events.

It doesn't matter how much promotion Cal undertakes or what Cal does, the simple fact is there is less interest in women's sports. That is a truism across the board - not just a Cal. Look at the WNBA, women's professional hockey league, women's professional soccer (other than women's national team which gets good ratings), etc.

All of this is simple economics - I can't think of a single NCAA womens sport that is generally profitable (maybe womens basketball at Uconn and Tennessee?) or for that matter professional leagues that make money.

It's unfortunate so many feel this way. Women's basketball remains the team game that we remember from earlier time.

Because my daughter's played sports since 4 years old, I enjoy watching girls and women's sports. I think Cal WBB has a following. With more successs it possibly could become a revenue sport.

Fyght4Cal said:

---

It's unfortunate so many feel this way. Women's basketball remains the team game that we remember from earlier time.

Because my daughter's played sports since 4 years old, I enjoy watching girls and women's sports. I think Cal WBB has a following. With more successs it possibly could become a revenue sport.

---

I mean this as a serious question - what can be done to change the way people feel/act regarding womens sports? Do you think that better promotion of womens sports (as the feds are requiring of Cal), will have any effect? If not, what is the solution, if any?

Personally, I would watch a Cal womens sports event on TV (soccer, basketball, softball, swimming, water polo), but wouldn't spend money to attend. As a student, I would have gone to some of those events possibly.

Beyond that, I would watch a ncaa womens game where someone I know is playing (e.g., friend's daughter who plays D-1 soccer). Other than that, my time and limited dollars will be spent on other things (professional hockey/baseball and other sports). There are lots of mens sports I wouldn't pay to watch either (minor league baseball, professional basketball, etc.)

Bears2thDoc said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

...... And while I'm sure all of Cal's women athletes can kick my butt in any athletic competition, that doesn't mean I will pay money to watch them play...

---

That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.
You sir, are an ass.

---

I'm being triggered. I need a safe space from Title IX

Bears2thDoc said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

...... And while I'm sure all of Cal's women athletes can kick my butt in any athletic competition, that doesn't mean I will pay money to watch them play...

---

That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.

---

Are you kidding? I see nothing sexist in his post.