Oakes back on fox and company

[SummaCumDoggie]

could someone post the audio file?

[Gooddawg]

Somehow the conversation turned to basketball? Not sure why. Little was said about the game plan, cut off. boxerdog called and asked about his quote or bragging on spending more on womens than mens and Oakes just said they want men's and womens programs to succeed and they need extra money for both.

[boxerdog]

The reason why I asked about that quote is because it has everything to do with running an athletic department. I simply asked him why we are the only university who invests more in women's basketball than men's. It easy to predict how he answered: The national reputation and accomplishment warrants more investment...

What I wanted Jim to ask him, before I got cut-off, was: "Why don't we invest more in women's basketball than football?" The implication being, of course, that women's basketball should never take precedent over football for a number of reasons. My point in all that is women's basketball does not pay the bills. In fact, women's basketball can never possibly pay the bills. Ironically, Jim is the first to admit, we need money.

Therefore, it is absolutely ludicrous to invest more money in a program that cannot generate revenue! We do this at the expense of the potentially large revenue generating programs, especially men's basketball. Jim went on to point out that men's basketball has not had as nearly a productive history as women's. I told him, if he can read between the lines, that the two programs aren't comparable. Women's basketball has had a relatively (as compared to other women's programs) large financial investment while men's basketball has had a relatively (as compared to other men's programs) miniscule financial investment. Of course the women have fared better!

All that to say, those kind of idiotic statements made by an athletic director should just about dq him as being up to the task of running the department.

[glm47]

The reason why I asked about that quote is because it has everything to do with running an athletic department. I simply asked him why we are the only university who invests more in women's basketball than men's. It easy to predict how he answered: The national reputation and accomplishment warrants more investment...

What I wanted Jim to ask him, before I got cut-off, was: "Why don't we invest more in women's basketball than football?" The implication being, of course, that women's basketball should never take precedent over football for a number of reasons. My point in all that is women's basketball does not pay the bills. In fact, women's basketball can never possibly pay the bills. Ironically, Jim is the first to admit, we need money.

Therefore, it is absolutely ludicrous to invest more money in a program that cannot generate revenue! We do this at the expense of the potentially large revenue generating programs, especially men's basketball. Jim went on to point out that men's basketball has not had as nearly a productive history as women's. I told him, if he can read between the lines, that the two programs aren't comparable. Women's basketball has had a relatively (as compared to other women's programs) large financial investment while men's basketball has had a relatively (as compared to other men's programs) miniscule financial investment. Of course the women have fared better!

All that to say, those kind of idiotic statements made by an athletic director should just about dq him as being up to the task of running the department.

I think he has proven quite successfully that he doesn't know a damn thing about running an athletic program.

[glm47]

I think he has proven quite successfully that he doesn't know a damn thing about running an athletic program.

But then what would you expect? His entire working career prior to his job at tech was being Bennett Johnston's gopher.

[boxerdog]

But then what would you expect? His entire working career prior to his job at tech was being Bennett Johnston's gopher.

Believe it or not, I think he has done some things really well. Making that statement, however, was not one of them.