OT: University of Iowa must pay $1.4 million to Jane Meyer

[Sargassoc]

Not basketball (hence the OT), but women's athletics. Drop in the bucket for the university.

Link HERE.

 

[Wally East]

Thanks for this. She and her partner and Iowa athletics were the subject of one portion of an episode of a podcast about a year and I wondered what had happened in the intervening year.

The episode featured a number of interesting stories, including that it appears that UCLA counted men's practice players as (women) participants on the women's basketball team for the sake counting totals for Title IX purposes.

Reveal - Women's Sports, A Man's Game

 

[BigBird]

Not a drop in the bucket. The settlement, which with attorney fees, may reach 3.5 million would equal about one-third of the total cash reserves the program had in the last fiscal year. Some bucket, some drop.

 

[Sargassoc]

And now the price tag just rocketed to over $6 million. Tracey Griesbaum gets hers (along with their lawyers).

LINK HERE

 

[DefenseBB]

This is an instance of a University not treating all of its women's administrators and coaches in the same consistent pattern/manner as the men. From my reading of numerous articles and the public court proceeding, Meyer had an undisclosed relationship with a coach, for a period of a few years. Allegations of misconduct against the coach and then the dismal by the AD of the coach and ultimate resignation of Meyer vs. being fired. The coach deserved to be let go, however the administrator should have been given a slight reprimand and be allowed to keep her job. University was not consistent in how it treated similar instances in the men's department. The judgement is NOT a drop in the bucket and the myth that P5 schools have oogles of cash needs to stop, they don't.
IMO if every university would treat the men's indiscretions the same as the women's this judgement would not have happened. The "old boy" network of too much tolerance (minimizing the sanctions or simply ignoring) continues to ultimately hurt programs. There is a similar suit going on at Texas. My guess is that coach will also win.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

This is an instance of a University not treating all of its women's administrators and coaches in the same consistent pattern/manner as the men. From my reading of numerous articles and the public court proceeding, Meyer had an undisclosed relationship with a coach, for a period of a few years. Allegations of misconduct against the coach and then the dismal by the AD of the coach and ultimate resignation of Meyer vs. being fired. The coach deserved to be let go, however the administrator should have been given a slight reprimand and be allowed to keep her job. University was not consistent in how it treated similar instances in the men's department. The judgement is NOT a drop in the bucket and the myth that P5 schools have oogles of cash needs to stop, they don't.
IMO if every university would treat the men's indiscretions the same as the women's this judgement would not have happened. The "old boy" network of too much tolerance (minimizing the sanctions or simply ignoring) continues to ultimately hurt programs. There is a similar suit going on at Texas. My guess is that coach will also win.

Agree 100%, but I have to comment on the oodles of cash. I agree they don't. But they spend it like they do.

One factor along those lines is that alumni are more likely to casually donate to the athletics than to the academics. I still make a modest donation to Rutgers, and athletics it is. Plus I donate somewhat more to Arizona now that they are my local team, and I know some other transplants that also donate, and yep, to athletics. So oodles of money, no, but perhaps more than their "fair share" of the pie, some would argue yes.

 

[DefenseBB]

Agree 100%, but I have to comment on the oodles of cash. I agree they don't. But they spend it like they do.

One factor along those lines is that alumni are more likely to casually donate to the athletics than to the academics. I still make a modest donation to Rutgers, and athletics it is. Plus I donate somewhat more to Arizona now that they are my local team, and I know some other transplants that also donate, and yep, to athletics. So oodles of money, no, but perhaps more than their "fair share" of the pie, some would argue yes.

Actually, there have been some great articles posted this year alone on the Major Athletic programs and how much money the actually DON'T make. It is still a limited number of schools who actually make money on Athletics (20-30). Most are still heavily subsidized by student fees and the state (public schools).
Even mighty Alabama misleads their books. While they had revenue of $110 million on football, but its costs have increased to over $65 mil (so despite Saban claims he pays these "analysts little to nothing" if you have dozens, they still cost money) and then they don't count capital debt payments against the revenue ($38 mil per yr. building new facilities for football) nor do they assign administrative overhead ($29 mil in AD costs not assigned to a sport). So you see, not such a golden parachute after all. All public university's have to disclose budgets to the general public. Just google it.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Actually, there have been some great articles posted this year alone on the Major Athletic programs and how much money the actually DON'T make. It is still a limited number of schools who actually make money on Athletics (20-30). Most are still heavily subsidized by student fees and the state (public schools).
Even mighty Alabama misleads their books. While they had revenue of $110 million on football, but its costs have increased to over $65 mil (so despite Saban claims he pays these "analysts little to nothing" if you have dozens, they still cost money) and then they don't count capital debt payments against the revenue ($38 mil per yr. building new facilities for football) nor do they assign administrative overhead ($29 mil in AD costs not assigned to a sport). So you see, not such a golden parachute after all. All public university's have to disclose budgets to the general public. Just google it.

If you were answering me, you misunderstood me. I happen to agree pretty much 100% with you. Perhaps I should have stopped after stating that they don't have it, but spend like they do.

Then I admit my verbiage got fuzzy as I mixed 2 points - that part of the reason they spend what they do is that they think there is an endless donation stream they can tap that will just grow if they have a better product, have a better facility, etc - and the separate idea that they don't have oodles of money but that some would argue they get too much of the pie, including (which is how I ran the ideas together) that they get too high a portion of donations that could better support the academic mission.

Being a Rutgers fan - which program is hugely subsidized, and a state school, etc. - made me very aware of all that stuff. And someone I know long ago - when I was first following college sports - explained just some of the ways that universities cook the books, so to speak.