Gill Interview
- Thread starter SFspidur
- Start date
Matt Baranny extended also. Regardless who initiated these hires and extensions, it is under his watch.
So the Rocco experience may have showed him the alumni were not going to put up with a slow non
involved AD. Not sold on Gill but some positive moves recently.
Why wouldn't Chemotti's extension not be something that Gill is directly a part of? Do you have some inside information to the contrary? How about Barany's great extension and added position to keep him as part of the Spider program? I would think also Gill had some conversations with Coach Woodson about the performance of the baseball team this year that led to the Spiders parting ways with the pitching coach. He was also named to the Men's D1 basketball selection committee. Maybe we should congratulate him on these moves instead of looking for the negative spins.
SpiderFan, agree 100%. Not a Gill fan on a personal level, but it appears to me that he is doing a good job. In addition, the uptick in our recruiting for basketball may have been stimulated behind the scenes by Mr. Gill.
Last edited:
Not a fan of Gill, mainly due to his inaction on Mooney and Shafer, but the extension of Chemotti
and hiring of Huesman, don't happen without the AD playing a lead role. So, he deserves credit for those moves. The fact that we had to hire Huesman in the first place after the Rocco situation, he also deserves "credit" for.
Have to provide an appropriate counterbalance to your unending rainbows and sunshine.97, great! Was anticipating your breath of stale air.
a lot that is being said here is pure speculation and that is dangerous to attack based on what one thinks as oppose to what one knows as fact. if someone does not like a person, OK, say that and then make your case but let's remember that KG is part of our family not someone from umwcah for gosh sakes. think most of this comes from the admission deals and who the heck wants their athletic director making admission decisions, really? the rocco deal was not KG, that was purely rocco. would bet that not one person who posts here really knows what he does and how well or poorly he does it. attacking another school's athletic director based on innuendo, rumor, speculation is fine but doing it to your own is not funny or right.
R, glad you said that, understand that you know a lot more than most of us but choose to keep it that way for the good of the program.
Actually that was A, but I share his thoughts. If you only knew how many times I have removed my hands from the key board, or deleted something typed
my error, Rs and As get rather hazy in old age, plus R is much, much older than A. realize that both of you are more in the know than a lot of us and quite frankly appreciate you holding your tongues, truly. don't understand if it is so bad why people are not going to the decision makers within the administration and asking for relief or action? that is how it was done all of my life as an employee, you go to your boss, if that does not work, you go above he or she. complaining to you guys does not help, sorry to say, has to be done with the decision makers. also will add, there were always those who complained no matter what the situation was, that was their deal. if there is lack of trust, support, poor morale, then decision makers need to know, investigate and make changes, that is how things should work. if things are not working like that, then it goes all the way to the top and that is the real problem.
Last edited:
Fair one? I've never understood Title IX, conflating revenue sports and nonrevenue sports should never have been done. Why should a school be forced to provide equal scholarships when some sports actually deliver revenue and others are purely an expense. Now it Title IX required all non revenue sports (mens and womens)to be given the same scholarships I'm ok with it. I'd also like to know how close football and mens basketball at UR are to sustaining themselves.
It's somewhat difficult to tell since the revenue numbers we report include the subsidy that comes from the university. I am sure football is nowhere near turning a profit.
But overall we spend close to $7 million a year on football and $5 million on men's basketball.
Our overall athletic expenditures are about $14.5 million for men, $7.5 million for women, and $5.5 million in general expenses not allocated to a sport or gender.
But yes, Title IX has nothing to do with revenue. That's not the purpose of it.
But overall we spend close to $7 million a year on football and $5 million on men's basketball.
Our overall athletic expenditures are about $14.5 million for men, $7.5 million for women, and $5.5 million in general expenses not allocated to a sport or gender.
But yes, Title IX has nothing to do with revenue. That's not the purpose of it.
I'd be surprised if football pulls in even $3M a year in revenue. Not sure what we get for the luxury suites, but assume we average about $25 a seat for the season from everyone else, and we legitimately sell 6500 or 7000 per game, that's about $1M there. Generously assume everyone spends $10 in concessions at every game and round up, that's another $500k or so. Sponsorships I doubt total $500k, but for fun let's say they do. That's $2M. How much merchandise are we selling? Maybe $100k or so at most?
Obviously, Title IX has nothing to do with revenue. His point is it should take that into consideration. Girls, mostly, will never have the opportunity to play in a sport that pays for itself. They should have the opportunity to play college athletics. I agree that if a program funds itself it should be exempt. Cold, hard, non fudgeable benchmarks. Seems too rational to be considered. Oranges should be compared to oranges not apples. Should be school to school, too. Assume UCONNs women hoops team is one of the exceptions for girls and maybe a couple other programs would also qualify as exempt from the girl's side for counting scholarships.
*BUT you have to have the caveat prohibiting schools from just putting out programs that fund themselves. You want football and basketball, baseball in the south, maybe hockey in the north, maybe soccer or lax one day, you also have to provide a slew of non-revenue sports for men and women in equal numbers. You are in the sports business instead of just the university business one cost of that is to have a wide range of programs that don't make money. In my opinion for every girls non revenue sport there should be a boys non revenue sport and matching scholarships. As for the fact, there will be more boys on scholarship than girls that's just life. Sorry, most people don't pay to watch girls play sports, why deny the obvious in an effort to be overly "fair." Matching it up is just an overly idealistic viewpoint of the use of the federal funds. Let the teams that can pay for themselves pay for themselves. Let the federal funds be used evenly for the rest of the sports.
*BUT you have to have the caveat prohibiting schools from just putting out programs that fund themselves. You want football and basketball, baseball in the south, maybe hockey in the north, maybe soccer or lax one day, you also have to provide a slew of non-revenue sports for men and women in equal numbers. You are in the sports business instead of just the university business one cost of that is to have a wide range of programs that don't make money. In my opinion for every girls non revenue sport there should be a boys non revenue sport and matching scholarships. As for the fact, there will be more boys on scholarship than girls that's just life. Sorry, most people don't pay to watch girls play sports, why deny the obvious in an effort to be overly "fair." Matching it up is just an overly idealistic viewpoint of the use of the federal funds. Let the teams that can pay for themselves pay for themselves. Let the federal funds be used evenly for the rest of the sports.
Btw, anybody else surprised we haven't gotten to the next step of the absurdity and intercollegiate sports collapses on itself? I'm almost stunned some lawyer hasn't looked at Title IX and pushed for handicapped or disabled athletes to have the same scholarship opportunities as nondisabled. Why shouldn't say little people have the same opportunities as 6 foot or taller (male) athletes or 5'7+ (females) that make up the preponderance of teams? Why shouldn't we have an even distribution by race of athletes? What about us fat slobs? Shouldn't we have a team? It doesn't take more than the next step to see the idea behind Title IX, while well meaning, is pretty absurd thinking on its own.
I'm talking in general not just UR.
I wouldn't be against some scholarships counting against a program and some not when they don't fully pay for themselves.
Say soccer operates at a 25% loss. Three quarters of the scholarships are funded for that measuring period say every ten years. The other quarter count toward the even distribution. Women's basketball operates at a 90% loss. One scholarship is exempt the other 9 go to the other pool. Seems more reasonable?
I wouldn't be against some scholarships counting against a program and some not when they don't fully pay for themselves.
Say soccer operates at a 25% loss. Three quarters of the scholarships are funded for that measuring period say every ten years. The other quarter count toward the even distribution. Women's basketball operates at a 90% loss. One scholarship is exempt the other 9 go to the other pool. Seems more reasonable?
Agreed, the irony is much like for girls for most male athletes that's not an option. In the interest of being "fair" to girls now, we are penalizing a subset of males.
My point is it should
And while we're on the topic, why does gender matter anyway, you can be whatever gender you feel like being. So we have a bunch of football players who feel like women that day and count as a female scholarship?
attended UR when no women ever got a sniff of a scholarship. having a daughter, it was nice that she had the chance for an athletic scholarship, did not receive one but the opportunity was there. there is more fairness but let's be real here title IX is way out of control whether it be on the scholie issue or the rape issue.
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law that states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
I've read the act before, it sounds nice but has been taken way to far. Lets say I want to give a kid down the street a scholarship so I donate the money to the university to cover his tuition. Do I then have to contribute money to pay for some unknown womans scholarship? Or look at it another way the football player is earning money for the school by doing a job people will pay to watch shouldn't the woman be expected to do a job that will produce the same money?
Put that on twitter and watch certain people's heads explode. You may have gone to jail saying such blasphemy 6 months ago. I agree with you though. It has gone way too far, and beyond all common sense.
Gill is a 4 year football letterman from Duke. Has a masters degree and has plenty of meat on his resume and will represent us well on the NCAA committee. He does plenty of heavy lifting.
Well it's been pretty quiet until we see what Hans does. But in the meantime this board will do what it does best, beat on repeatedly on some dead horses.
My fear is that we are all in on Hans as a grad transfer, and only Hans....because we are scared to go after anyone else that might end up missing the GPA by .001 (like Bernard). I hope that is not the case but fear it may be.
