Who are the people at the camps? Are they all full-time OU employees? You are suddenly supervising how many minors? The university isn't set up to do that.
Sooner Sessions Camps
- Thread starter rocjunkie
- Start date
Who are the people at the camps? Are they all full-time OU employees? You are suddenly supervising how many minors? The university isn't set up to do that.
35TangoTango
New member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,873
- Reaction score
- 0
Then why cancel it for only the distaff side of one sport? Aren't there softball camps, gymnastics camps, etc.?
I'm not even trying to take a position on why they might have cancelled the camps. I have not a clue, and I'm not sure we've heard the truth. I'm simply trying to state why insurance could be a problem, given how the insurance industry approaches a problem. Temporary or seasonal help are very difficult to insure. Insurance companies don't like the unknown. They know, e.g., that given your age and health, you are likely to live exactly a given length of time. They can devise premiums based on that information. On the other hand, insurance companies find temporary help to be difficult to evaluate. How do you set premiums if you aren't certain of the risk? This may or may not have anything to do with it.
soonerstar
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,872
- Reaction score
- 4
Coale is making 900,000 dollars base this year and $1.02 million total. I read somewhere a couple years back that some of that extra 102, 000 came from the revenue off her camps.
SoonerNorm
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 19,033
- Reaction score
- 1
See my question to you...how many temporary employees do you think the university employs at any given time? I don't know why the university cancelled the camps but I'm 99% sure it wasn't because of temporary employees.
Let's see. I just finished saying that I didn't know if this had anything to do with it. I was addressing a specific point. Any further argument?
cowboysooner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,356
- Reaction score
- 175
Roc, thanks for posting this thread as we have discussed this on the board a number of times and have all been wondering. So again, thanks.
I guess I'm just with Norm on this one, and that is, that we just don't know and won't probably ever know the full story. In my life experiance, it usually has to do with money and that would seem to be the import of what Austin told you.
I have both sued and defended political subdivisions in Oklahoma and am pretty familiar with the risks of such subdivisions/entities like OU, and I just don't buy that the cost of insurance is driving the decision making. But, I don't know and haven't been privy to the decision making and the information you have obtained is probably more than any of us know, so maybe it is the insurance. Per the usual, I normally need to be corrected.
If the real concern is the inability to manage the risk associated with a kid being molested, and I'm not talking about the financial aspect of that happening, then it is just sad that we live in world where the risks to children is that high. When I was growing up, my mom used to threaten me with a belt if she saw me in the house before supper. Now, it seems most moms won't hardly let their kids walk down the street into the neighborhood to play without going with them and keeping their eyes on them. I wish I knew the answer.
I guess I'm just with Norm on this one, and that is, that we just don't know and won't probably ever know the full story. In my life experiance, it usually has to do with money and that would seem to be the import of what Austin told you.
I have both sued and defended political subdivisions in Oklahoma and am pretty familiar with the risks of such subdivisions/entities like OU, and I just don't buy that the cost of insurance is driving the decision making. But, I don't know and haven't been privy to the decision making and the information you have obtained is probably more than any of us know, so maybe it is the insurance. Per the usual, I normally need to be corrected.
If the real concern is the inability to manage the risk associated with a kid being molested, and I'm not talking about the financial aspect of that happening, then it is just sad that we live in world where the risks to children is that high. When I was growing up, my mom used to threaten me with a belt if she saw me in the house before supper. Now, it seems most moms won't hardly let their kids walk down the street into the neighborhood to play without going with them and keeping their eyes on them. I wish I knew the answer.
You are very welcome. My intent wasn't to start a "fire storm" here. I have enjoyed reading the debate on this subject, because as honest as Guy seemed to me, I personally, like Norm and others, don't get it. I attended camps during my high school years and gained a lot from them. I don't believe for a minute that it is not an important recruiting tool for Sherri or any other coach across the country. The Sooner Sessions front page states that it is a financial problem. I still think that if Sherri really wanted to continue, there would be a way to finance it. Whether it be the Penn State debacle, money, insurance, costs for officials, etc, etc..... we will probably never know the whole story, I am just glad that Guy at least answered the questions we asked and didn't pull too much mumbo jumbo.
When something that appears to be a positive is discontinued, you look for a logical reason. Something of value isn't just discarded without reason. When the reasons given don''t make sense, you tend to wonder if they are the reason, or if there is something within the logic that just isn't apparent. It would appear that there is something that we are not seeing that is a legal or financial problem or that this is not the reason.
When something happens quickly, it might also be due to something that is perceived as having happened or might happen that would be injurious to some party involved. Did an incident occur of which we are unaware? Did they see something in the Penn State situation that could be a problem that they didn't want to accept at this time?
Was this even a quick reaction? Had it been building for a while? We are so uninformed that this becomes a search for rumor rather than having a logical foundation for a search for facts.
When something happens quickly, it might also be due to something that is perceived as having happened or might happen that would be injurious to some party involved. Did an incident occur of which we are unaware? Did they see something in the Penn State situation that could be a problem that they didn't want to accept at this time?
Was this even a quick reaction? Had it been building for a while? We are so uninformed that this becomes a search for rumor rather than having a logical foundation for a search for facts.
Oliver Hardy
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2010
- Messages
- 3,930
- Reaction score
- 1
That insurance excuse is only valid if the OU bigwigs thinking was that little girls are more likely to get molested at a camp than little boys.
If insurance was the only reason, as others have pointed out, why not cancel all the camps from Stoops on down.
It might be the public excuse and may have some shred of believability, but I call BS on it being the real reason.
If insurance was the only reason, as others have pointed out, why not cancel all the camps from Stoops on down.
It might be the public excuse and may have some shred of believability, but I call BS on it being the real reason.
I think SY is right IMHO something did happen that we will never know about that caused the (IMHO) knee jerk reaction, that if we get rid of it we get rid of the potential of whatever happened ever happening again. This sounds like a Board reaction. Of course unfortunately in todays world it could happen at any event the University, or anybody else holds.
BanjoCharley
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,527
- Reaction score
- 18
That is just a little close to "guilty until we found something you did." Not my cup of tea.
Just a hypothetical theory considering there is no reason to discontinue the camps. The camps bring recruits on campus for evaluation, allow coaches to scout younger players, generate income, wages for current players and coaches, exposure for the university as a whole, especially academically. What if...just what if one of the staff (Ok, let's say SC) has violated a NCAA recruiting guideline during a camp, then self-reported and offered to drop the camp for a year, or two. It's about the only thing that makes sense to me. Softball still has a camp, so it's not a gender risk issue. Just a thought.
Last edited:
MsProudSooner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 10,796
- Reaction score
- 177
Historically, if OU self-reports anything, in any sport, to the NCAA, it's been publicized. If a school self-imposes a penalty on itself, the NCAA rules whether they accept the self-imposed penalties or not. This is also publicized. Nothing like that has been publicized by OU or the NCAA.
