Quote Originally Posted by TheDarkHawkReturns View Post
I asked the Eunuch Board for those numbers. No reply. Just a repeat of the misleading number used in the D'Amato article. Given that 50% or more of the posters over there are actually employees of the Athletic Department, you would think those numbers would have magically popped on the board if they were so damn good. The lack of an answer is in fact an answer in this case.
For most purposes, the lack of an answer is an answer, i agree.

But if you want to make the case to Chancellor Mone that he needs to pay more attention to athletics, particularly considering its affect on UWM's public standing, i think you need data rather than the absence of data.

The folks on the eunuch board who are actual employees of the athletics department can't release that information on the board; since they're pretending they're not employees, releasing it would give away the game. Also, if the data is, as we suspect, evidence against Braun rather than for her, they would have even less incentive to release it.

i think you'd have to go after that information some other fashion. i am sure it would be a lot of work, but i think the gathered data would be very useful.

Someone would have to identify current and former donors, and if how much they've given and/or are giving isn't public information in some form, would have to ask them, along with, if they have stopped giving, why they stopped. Each individual donor could simply refuse to answer the questions, even if assured that their names would not appear publicly.

It's possible that campus administration already has the data, but would they have had a reason to ask for it unless they already suspected that the reported data was inaccurate? Perhaps the Chancellor's intervention in the HC hiring is an indication that he doesn't trust Braun. That makes sense to me, but i have no way of knowing for certain.