[OutsiderFan]

Garvin,

I realize this is a Stanford board, and people here like to ridicule and get their schadenfreude fix from California.  That's fine.  But doesn't it get gratuitous at some point?  There are plenty of real blunders and incompetent moves made by the California athletic department and university to revel in, but this Barsky thing is just absurd.  Are you aware how little credibility he has?

While what he says is factually true, the reasoning he uses to make the point he makes, is as weak as California's OL.  He carefully chooses facts to support his case, and conveniently ignores any that poke holes in it, including any that would provide a complete factual context and destroy his argument.  Barsky hates sports.  He has an agenda to destroy sports at California.  If you ever see him point out these facts, let me know:

1. No general fund money paid Tedford off
2. The money for a new coach will come exclusively from funds generated by the Athletic Department revenues and donors
3. Library funding being cut has nothing to do with California  sports

To put it another way...  Libraries are cut.  The football coach's salary increases.  Barsky concluded Libraries were cut because the coach's salary went up.  He doesn't even consider that the money to pay for the coach would never have been spent on the library.  Barsky's positions don't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.  It's frankly pretty surprising that a Stanford person would fall for his flimsy reasoning. 

The truly sad thing is that if Barsky and his ilk supported California sports, the AD might actually be able to generate revenue for the university as a real profit center.  Increased interest in California sports programs, and the potential for higher university donations as a result of people feeling good about California sports program successes (in particular football and mens' baskteball), could provide more money to the university.

[OutsiderFan]

Garvin,

I realize this is a Stanford board, and people here like to ridicule and get their schadenfreude fix from California.  That's fine.  But doesn't it get gratuitous at some point?  There are plenty of real blunders and incompetent moves made by the California athletic department and university to revel in, but this Barsky thing is just absurd.  Are you aware how little credibility he has?

While what he says is factually true, the reasoning he uses to make the point he makes, is as weak as California's OL.  He carefully chooses facts to support his case, and conveniently ignores any that poke holes in it, including any that would provide a complete factual context and destroy his argument.  Barsky hates sports.  He has an agenda to destroy sports at California.  If you ever see him point out these facts, let me know:

1. No general fund money paid Tedford off
2. The money for a new coach will come exclusively from funds generated by the Athletic Department revenues and donors
3. Library funding being cut has nothing to do with California  sports

To put it another way...  Libraries are cut.  The football coach's salary increases.  Barsky concluded Libraries were cut because the coach's salary went up.  He doesn't even consider that the money to pay for the coach would never have been spent on the library.  Barsky's positions don't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.  It's frankly pretty surprising that a Stanford person would fall for his flimsy reasoning. 

The truly sad thing is that if Barsky and his ilk supported California sports, the AD might actually be able to generate revenue for the university as a real profit center.  Increased interest in California sports programs, and the potential for higher university donations as a result of people feeling good about California sports program successes (in particular football and mens' baskteball), could provide more money to the university.