kikuria

I seem to recall reading a previous thread but ... could someone refresh my recollection on whey we didn't move over to the CAA in all sports?

Heard recently that MJ had/has some Title IX concerns too (not related directly to tennis or the previous OCR investigation) and they were in writing. If Benson fired her for speaking out about it things are going to go to hell pretty quickly. Good god, could it get any worse?

Any word on whether Benson's contract has been renewed? It'll be 5 years in August.

I haven't seen any announcements but maybe someone else has.

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2019/05/16/title-ix-how-female-athletes-new-york-colleges-face-inequities/3471574002/

I thought about that very question. It's part of the reason I stopped advocating for crew outside of it being the only sport that I know of that can hit the numbers needed (I think the current team is solid but that's more being a fan than anything else.) I came to this conclusion by looking at the issue differently. If my daughter was on the club team (she's not in college yet), and she said "Dad, they're offering to make the team varsity ...", I'd advise her against it so long as Benson was at the helm. That was a tough pill to swallow given some of my previous posts. But that's where I'm at. Summary: I agree with you almost 100%

You're right, it is about equity of opportunity. OCR already decided on this though. School was 97 roster spots short. This past year it was 86 slots short (which is more than last year ). I can't wrap my head around Benson lying though. It was unnecessary. Quick note - We do know what was already agreed to. They agreed to "substantial proportionality" within the agreed upon time frame. OCR doesn't tell anyone how to get there. Only that they have to. But the court/jury can order a specific remedy. And that's what concerns me. I'm a crew guy and think it's the right fit because of numbers. The club team had good success directly with D1 schools, huge alumni support in terms of $$, and has had a solid coach for years. But that doesn't mean it's the only solution or even the best solution. That should be for the school to decide. So if it's taken out of the Department's hands - that's on Benson and no one else.

Want to make a real change? Don't allow anyone to make excuses for violating the law.

I was asked a question. I answered the question. Fortunately, it matters not what you or I or anyone else thinks of the question or answer. However, excrement it is not. Those email(s) exist. Unless you were specifically referring to the audio. In which case, I have already indicated that was not played for me (I assume the person didn't have it on them.) Here's what I'm hoping for - jury trial. I thought about this long and hard. My former preference was to have the school fix the problem and make it go away. It's become more clear that the people involved are the problem and it can only be resolved with a change in leadership (or a come to religion moment). A jury trial seems to be the only way that ALL of this stuff comes out.

Perfectly reasonable question. I was shown a copy of an email thread that he had with a 3rd party (meaning not me.) Which was a follow up to an in person meeting(s?) that he had. I'm told there is an audio recording of that meeting though I have NOT listened to it.

The entire thing? Or just the part about Benson lying to federal investigators? Can't imagine that's something he'll be asked about when he's deposed, right?

You ask as though you would like some sort of zinger. So just off the cuff - he should be investigated for lying to a federal agency in his capacity as Athletic Director during the OCR investigation of the department. Therefore his performance as AD is lackluster at best. Criminal at worst.

Title IX numbers are out for last year. Using the Office of Civil Rights method of counting, the school is 86 spots short. I'm pretty sure that that was year 2 of 3 of the agreement with the OCR. Benson hasn't made a lick of progress let alone resolved the issue. Upside - doesn't look like it's gotten worse.

Does a GW buyout cover the cost of the Patos buyout?

I thought the 'master-plan' was put together between 2010-2012 (someone please correct me if dates are off.) Assuming this is accurate, wouldn't it have been done of McElroy's watch? Meaning the bid is going out under Benson but was planned for by others.

Would more seats allow for outside revenue via concerts and other events?

Few people on this thread might like to derail Benson's future at UAlbany ...

I"d be inclined to believe you! Is there a reason things have stalled? Or, I suppose, progress isn't well known?

I've been told something similar. But it was part of a broader discussion so I didn't want to over interpret it.

If accurate, then it seem that either: (1) Benson has lost/doesn't have the influence with the right people in order to make it a priority (particularly if the $$ are there); or (2) He's beloved by someone(s) because he's keeping Athletics from stealing the spotlight from other priorities (aka - he's complicit)

Was doing some math and realized that if he started in August 2014 this would be year #5. So unless he's had a undisclosed extension along the way ....

Anyone know when Benson's contract is up for renewal?

Respectfully to @GODANESGO, I responded to a question that was posted in this thread. It was about as dispassionate as I have been on the topic. It's a serious issue that the department is facing. @dslyank - I'm actually with you. I don't know if crew is the answer. It could be an answer because other schools have already used it for that purpose (balancing Title IX in relation to football. ) It's a sport that I know which is why I speak on it. But that doesn't mean it's the only solution. Also, I think we're in agreement that something needs to be done before things get worse. One version of worse is having something imposed on us. Side note, it doesn't seem to be off topic in a thread about football/resources because Title IX has such huge implications on them.

A change in head coaches does NOT directly have an impact on Title IX concerns. But replacing that coach with a male coach COULD have an impact on Title IX concerns particularly if there are already demonstrated pattern of Title IX violations. There's no concern unless someone files a complaint. Full stop. As an example, based on enrollment and participation data, the school was violating Title IX for more than 20 years (per recently complaint, OCR report, and other data sources.) It's doesn't become a 'problem' for the department unless someone files a complaint with the OCR about it. It could become a problem for Benson because he is under intense scrutiny. The optics are less than desirable in the middle of a federal lawsuit.

Doesn't mean that I'm wrong. So, I'll continue to be Mr. One-Note until they solve this self-induced problem.