You are correct...it's not just about scholarship money...it's equal opportunity and resources as well.
TU Athletic Facilities -- Say what you want about Haisten...
- Thread starter Weatherdemon
- Start date
You are both right ... and wrong.
BLA is right that TU is upside down in favor of women’s scholarships last I heard/counted. At one point you could add baseball and still have a few to spare. The obstacle to baseball is endowed scholarships not operational costs, which would include scholarships if not endowed. Which is where most of the $6.5 figure I was quoted was going.
You are wrong from the standpoint of having to spend equal amounts. The standard is “substantial proportionality”. It’s a three part test that isn’t important here. You don’t have to spend money dollar for dollar, but what you spend has to meet the goal of equality. This is probably best demonstrated by Alabama’s half a billion dollar football stadium upgrade and facilities expansion. They don’t have to build $200 million in women’s stadiums, but their stadiums used by women must be proportional in quality, etc. And it’s one reason why our IPF can’t be just football only without sharing it with women’s sports or making upgrades elsewhere. Haisten showed his lack of insight on these issues in his article.
Agree on your second paragraph.
Last edited:
Thanks for the kind words. Im not getting many of them on here lately. But that’s what you get for telling people straight.
I’m not an insider, but I’ve acquired knowledge and insight from university publications and representatives, friends, former trustees, employees, and former employees over the years.
As you can see in this thread, I know how to find info on the web that doesn’t usually see the light of day, which helps disconnect the truth of what I hear from “insiders” from the rumors spread on here. I do my homework. Not everybody posting or reading likes it. But whatever.
It’s amazing the number of times I post something on here as fact using sources like the ones in this thread or from campus, then somebody disputes it, then three months later the same person posts the same fact and claims they have insider knowledge. Brings the lulz.
It doesn’t help that federal funding keeps the doors open and both the executive and legislative branches continue to foist unfunded compliance mandates on them.
But you are 1000 percent correct. There’s little built in incentives for tier 3 personalities in leadership to raise and save money on the academic side. It’s the opposite of good business. They are looking at changing that culture ... to a certain extent.
Salaries for VPs in programming and biz ops are out of control and TU has actually done a pretty good job of controlling those. The VP for administraton at TU makes approximately the same as the same person at Creighton but $200,000 less than the same person at SMU. I could go on. There’s fat to cut. Some of them are VPs. Some are not. Some make a fair salary for what they do. Others are excessively over paid in my opinion, but SOME have strategic ties to the community that helps TU. Others need to put their stuff in a box and go do what they are doing for $100,000 less in the private sector.
I keep getting invited to alumni events in Houston and in April Clancy is supposed to be there. Makes me almost want to go over and inquire as to what is his vision for athletics at TU. An open ended question.
I think if you go you’ll have a better understanding of what is going on, whether you ask a tough question or not. The man answers questions directly and his background as a psychiatrist is on his sleeve. It’s clear he views the school as an incubator of young minds. He deeply cares about the health of each student and wants them all to flourish. And it’s clear he’s spent a lot of time thinking about that. Time that others might have spent driving the University into debt for their own enrichment and edification.
Haisten, er Scoop, is the Doug Wojcik of sports journalism. They could be twins: huge ego, can't take criticism, supreme a-holishness and stupid face.
I was just being simplistic, I realize title IX can sometimes become very complicated and involves some judgements. I just meant I doubt they are budgeting a great deal over for the women's side. With the current financial restrictions I assume every dime is squeezed into ten and a half cents. Spending on one side will necessitate spending on the other.
More importantly is the perception issue and why I said no way. I don't keep up too much with the academics, but when money is tight TU has always had a strain who want to cut sports. Donaldson was probably the height of their influence but I doubt they have fallen off that much. They will definitely kick and scream on a non-revenue generating add. I would think the truly fiscally conservative people would too.
You have no idea what you are talking about as your backtracking reveals. What you are saying is all completely misinformed and just plain wrong. Funding of women’s sports at TU is at or near record levels, not just because the law requires it and it’s part of a larger strategy on inclusion, but also because it’s right. Think twice before you start throwing around accusations in this forum that TU is violating the law. And start by knowing the law if you do make the misplaced decision to speak from your rear.
You said you doubted they were budgeting a great deal on the women’s side. That’s an implied accusation that they aren’t complying with federal law and it’s one of the allegations that almost got the program the death penalty in 1991. Don’t spread false rumors or confuse people.
At no time was anything implied about doing anything illegal. And how I could go from being fine with spending money to that takes a sort of leap I am simply not capable of but you obviously were.
If we are spending money it is equaled between men and women's for sports right now to stay in compliance.
We are not spending money because times are tight. That means we aren't spending any extra money just because on women's sports.
Therefore if we spent more money on men's sports (i.e. adding a new program) we would need to increase the spending on women's sports because I do not think the school would want to have title IX issues. So it is not just the cost of the added men's sport, but also the corresponding increase needed to maintain title IX.
Beyond all of that I would be very surprised in today's world and the University's culture that we would not provide equal opportunities.
Of course you're the one who just said they wouldn't take 25 million in donation for a fully funded IPF but 6.5 million will start a new sport, so your accusations of backtracking are amusing.
I also never claimed to be an insider or posses any particularly inside information. I am not NW Arkansas source material.
I don't personally think I have any insight into the details of the Universities current difficulties in its financial health other than what is widely known and is probably general in nature. I would also caution you against implying that you do unless you have looked over the entire mess and have seen the balance sheet. Partial information is often much more misleading than none.
Reminds me of an old Elvis Costello song as Clancy's probable response.
"Lip service...is all you'll ever get from me."
Great song! It’s just my perception but he seems to really care about the physical and emotional well being of each student and wants to see them all flourish individually and collectively. It’s a big difference from the approach of Upham, Donaldson, and others. With that in mind he gives direct answers in my opinion. He just doesn’t give every answer every person hopes to hear. He’s not going to tell you everything he knows about the decision making of the board. That would be too tedious, unproductive, and make it difficult for them to deliberate openly. But he has shown a remarkable ability in the short term to answer tough questions early on. Athletics just hasn’t been a priority — with plenty of justification. There are some major announcements coming in the next few weeks on the academic side. Once that’s done and we have a TV rights contract, I think you’ll be pleased with his attention to athletics — as long as Leavit and her allies off campus are left out of it.
Hope you are right. I'll be cautiously optimistic mixed with a healthy dollop of skepticism.
Always adding constructively to the conversation. You bring a lot to the discussion. Keep up the good work.
I thought about posting this and didn't. But I decided I probably should have. I love Austin as a supporter of everything TU. I disagreed with his tweet about asbestos sign only because of the perception of that post. I called up Austin shortly after my post referring to the Asbestos tweet.
We had a nice 15 minute conversation about the gist the whole situation, and how it was all being perceived on and off the board. Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule Austin. I know he realizes I think well of him, but I just wanted to make sure the board realized as well. And I publicly want to apologize to him if I sounded overtly more critical of him than I intended.
I hope the meeting he told me he had set up with the university brass in a week or so goes well for him. Hopefully Austin can make some headway on finding the best avenues of providing some light for the supporters of TU athletics!
@VypeOK
We had a nice 15 minute conversation about the gist the whole situation, and how it was all being perceived on and off the board. Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule Austin. I know he realizes I think well of him, but I just wanted to make sure the board realized as well. And I publicly want to apologize to him if I sounded overtly more critical of him than I intended.
I hope the meeting he told me he had set up with the university brass in a week or so goes well for him. Hopefully Austin can make some headway on finding the best avenues of providing some light for the supporters of TU athletics!
@VypeOK
Last edited:
Anyone who has ever been on campus in any of the older buildings that have not been completely renovated since the 70s knows about the "asbestos" signs. Anyone who has ever worked in any type of facilities management knows that almost all tiles and pipe insulation for manufacturing or renovations done before the 80s knows they were coated with asbestos as a fire retardant. Asbestos in materials is not uncommon nor is it hazardous as long as you don't start tearing things up and creating the dust. I thought it was a pretty irresponsible article and the only thing it shows is that TU hasn't done renovations on several buildings in a while.
BTW, there is a distinction in the permit office between renovation and remodel. If you do a renovation in a bldg that has asbestos bearing materials, you must first do an extensive remediation. This remediation can cost millions of dollars depending on the size of the bldg. There's a reason why companies who abandon older buildings don't just tear them down. If there's asbestos in the building, the remediation to remove those materials without releasing the hazardous dust into the air costs far more than just leveling the building and removing the scraps.
BTW, there is a distinction in the permit office between renovation and remodel. If you do a renovation in a bldg that has asbestos bearing materials, you must first do an extensive remediation. This remediation can cost millions of dollars depending on the size of the bldg. There's a reason why companies who abandon older buildings don't just tear them down. If there's asbestos in the building, the remediation to remove those materials without releasing the hazardous dust into the air costs far more than just leveling the building and removing the scraps.
You're good. I think Austin is open enough to intelligently debate topics on here without getting butt-hurt if someone disagrees with him.
This times 100.
Now you know why they finally decided to essential rebuild the Astrodome around certain parts of the structure and why it went on the National Register of Historic Places so it couldn’t be torn down as political cover for being unable to pay for the demo. Same with Soldier Field. I’d bet in half the stadiums in the Big 10 and Notre Dave have it.
I kept my mouth shut about the TU asbestos for the most part because I think other issues are worth discussing and the amount is minor and could be removed relatively easily. I do think it is a tired excuse used too often to try to force athletic construction whether it’s mabee gym or LaFortune (now since remediate day). The major asbestos pull at TU was in the late 80s during the tenure, ironically, of a man who died of lung cancer.
And the irony was not lost on me of the IG post by Austin of the asbestos sign as a reason to rebuild since it was actually a reason to NOT demolish and rebuild.
In my time at ORU, we tore down an old residence hall. It cost $500k for the remediation and about $150k for the demolition and removal just to give you an idea of what we're talking about.
Mabee Gym would probably be a $1M+ remediation and about a $400k demo and removal (based on an educated guess). That's before you can build a new building on the old footprint and parking lot.
Similar threads
