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.okaydo said:
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/14/long-term-departmental-problem-probe-cal-athletics-indefinite-federal-title-ix-monitoring/
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?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.
OaktownBear said: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.okaydo said:
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/14/long-term-departmental-problem-probe-cal-athletics-indefinite-federal-title-ix-monitoring/
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.ColoradoBear said:OaktownBear said: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.okaydo said:
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/14/long-term-departmental-problem-probe-cal-athletics-indefinite-federal-title-ix-monitoring/
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.
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.Uthaithani said: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.ColoradoBear said:OaktownBear said: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.okaydo said:
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/14/long-term-departmental-problem-probe-cal-athletics-indefinite-federal-title-ix-monitoring/
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.
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.
That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.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...
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.Bears2thDoc said:That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.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...
You sir, are an ass.
It'a clear that Dirks was the Bob Bockrath of Chancellors.Uthaithani said: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.ColoradoBear said:OaktownBear said: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.okaydo said:
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/14/long-term-departmental-problem-probe-cal-athletics-indefinite-federal-title-ix-monitoring/
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.
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.
Bears2thDoc said:That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.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...
You sir, are an ass.
There's nothing sexist about it. Your post is quite ignorant though.Bears2thDoc said:That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.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...
You sir, are an ass.
No....SonomanA1 said: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.Bears2thDoc said:That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.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...
You sir, are an ass.
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/
How is it sexist? You think its "ist" to not have enough interest in ______ to pay to watch it?Bears2thDoc said:That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.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...
You sir, are an ass.
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:No....SonomanA1 said: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.Bears2thDoc said:That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.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...
You sir, are an ass.
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/
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.Bears2thDoc said:No....SonomanA1 said: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.Bears2thDoc said:That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.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...
You sir, are an ass.
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/
However, watching and paying, compared to watching and refusing to pay because it's women participating is.
Hmmmm......LunchTime said: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:No....SonomanA1 said: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.Bears2thDoc said:That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.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...
You sir, are an ass.
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/
However, watching and paying, compared to watching and refusing to pay because it's women participating is.
Bears2thDoc said:Hmmmm......LunchTime said: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:No....SonomanA1 said: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.Bears2thDoc said:That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.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...
You sir, are an ass.
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/
However, watching and paying, compared to watching and refusing to pay because it's women participating is.
"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.
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...
Bears2thDoc said:Hmmmm......LunchTime said: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:No....SonomanA1 said: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.Bears2thDoc said:That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.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...
You sir, are an ass.
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/
However, watching and paying, compared to watching and refusing to pay because it's women participating is.
"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.
Your lack of reading comprehension is truly breathtaking to behold.Bears2thDoc said:Hmmmm......LunchTime said:
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).
"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.
Lol!!!ColoradoBear said:
What's your lifetime expenditure on tickets for watching men's sports vs. women's sports? 100:1 rati
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.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...
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.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.
Bears2thDoc said:No....SonomanA1 said: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.Bears2thDoc said:That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.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...
You sir, are an ass.
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/
However, watching and paying, compared to watching and refusing to pay because it's women participating is.
Bears2thDoc said:Hmmmm......LunchTime said: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:
No....
However, watching and paying, compared to watching and refusing to pay because it's women participating is.
"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.
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.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 .
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?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.
Bears2thDoc said:That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.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...
You sir, are an ass.
Are you kidding? I see nothing sexist in his post.Bears2thDoc said:That is about the most sexist statement I've read on this site.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...