Donna Lopiano, chief executive officer of the Women's Sports Foundation from 1992 to 2007, led the women's athletic department at UT from 1975 to 1992. To her, "this whole (college athletics) financial crisis looks so much like the Wall Street debacle that it's not even funny."
She suggests drastic cost-cutting measures that include reducing football scholarships from 85 to 65 and eliminating video staff positions, sport-specific weight coaches and facilities that are used only by athletic departments.
Lopiano's most far-reaching suggestion, however, is that the NCAA try to gain an antitrust exemption from the government, which would allow schools to limit coaching salaries, perhaps to $1 million a year for a head football or basketball coach.
"That would save Texas $5 million a year," Lopiano said.
Okay, first of all, how does reducing the number of scholarships given to football, the biggest revenue producer for texas' athletic department, help the athletic department? Yes, you might save some money on twenty scholarships a year in the short term, but you are also reducing the depth on your team significantly, meaning more parity across college football (assuming all schools move down to this limit) which could lead to more losses for texas, which means less money for the program in the long term. Second, what does she have against the video staff? Is she upset because she never had a coaches show? From a marketing and advertising standpoint, video staffs are a huge necessity, because they are responsible for putting together highlights videos and producing coaches shows. From a competitive standpoint, video staffs are a necessity, because film every game, help break down tape, help with film exchange with other staffs, etc. Does she realize how much time a good video staff saves coaching staffs in football and basketball? I mean, I'm sure all coaches would rather have to cut up and break down game film themselves to help formulate game plans (something they and GAs would have to do, if you eliminted videos staffs) instead of spending time with their families, or other unimportant tasks like that.
As for getting an antitrust exemption, that is exactly what we need, more government involvement in sports. As for limiting coaching salaries, is she a socialist? One of the great things about sports is that amibition, drive, and hard work are rewarded; she seems to want to remove all of the rewards and make everything equal. Why don't we take all of the life lessons out of sports, and give everyone participation ribbons, too, while we're at it? You don't need to win or lose, everyone just needs to participate. Right, because you never have to face adversity and bounce back in real life, right?
How on Earth did this woman ever head up an athletic department with such anti-competitive views?