[CompSci87]

[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=5836.msg43087#msg43087 date=1334937405]
You're ignoring the political cost of keeping Lupoi.  In addition to the of extremely large proportions tuition increases, the UC system has also implemented a lot of budget cuts that have really hurt faculty and staff.  So the students and parents are feeling like they're getting totally screwed financially, the faculty and staff are feeling like they're getting totally screwed financially -- and in that atmosphere, you're advocating giving a of extremely large proportions raise to a total douchebag, when athletics is already losing money hand over fist?  Even if it were a great idea from a purely financial standpoint, you'll never get everyone else to believe that, so from the standpoint of university politics it would have been a disaster.

It's not like Lupoi's salary would be coming from the state budget.  Private donors would have paid the cost, just like Tedsel's contract.  That said, your point is well-taken.
[/quote]

Basically, money is money. If there is any pipe connecting two pots of money, they aren't really different. If money from private donors would have paid Lupoi's salary, then in Lupoi's absence that money can help pay for the stadium or other athletic department expenses instead, thus reducing the amount of money the athletic department needs to pull out of the general fund to cover its deficit. Or running it the other way, getting money from private donors to pay for a Lupoi salary increase would mean that money was not available to pay for the stadium, etc., thus increasing the athletic department's deficit.

Well, unless you're positing that there are donors out there who love Lupoi so much that they would have given money earmarked for his salary if he'd stayed, but will keep that money in their wallets now that he's gone.

[CompSci87]

[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=5836.msg43087#msg43087 date=1334937405]
You're ignoring the political cost of keeping Lupoi.  In addition to the of extremely large proportions tuition increases, the UC system has also implemented a lot of budget cuts that have really hurt faculty and staff.  So the students and parents are feeling like they're getting totally screwed financially, the faculty and staff are feeling like they're getting totally screwed financially -- and in that atmosphere, you're advocating giving a of extremely large proportions raise to a total douchebag, when athletics is already losing money hand over fist?  Even if it were a great idea from a purely financial standpoint, you'll never get everyone else to believe that, so from the standpoint of university politics it would have been a disaster.

It's not like Lupoi's salary would be coming from the state budget.  Private donors would have paid the cost, just like Tedsel's contract.  That said, your point is well-taken.
[/quote]

Basically, money is money. If there is any pipe connecting two pots of money, they aren't really different. If money from private donors would have paid Lupoi's salary, then in Lupoi's absence that money can help pay for the stadium or other athletic department expenses instead, thus reducing the amount of money the athletic department needs to pull out of the general fund to cover its deficit. Or running it the other way, getting money from private donors to pay for a Lupoi salary increase would mean that money was not available to pay for the stadium, etc., thus increasing the athletic department's deficit.

Well, unless you're positing that there are donors out there who love Lupoi so much that they would have given money earmarked for his salary if he'd stayed, but will keep that money in their wallets now that he's gone.