Is there a Big10 bylaw that specifies a school gets kicked-out if it doesn't play football for a couple years? Especially in this case of such a heinous crime over decades? Would a permanent conference expulsion be subject to a member vote? Would your school really run out of money without football for 2,3 4 years? What are the BOG's responsibilities to the school? It's hard to believe the Big 10 would permanently expel your school for standing on principle over football profit. There would be lawsuits for years.
No lawsuits. We were almost kicked out of the Big Ten right after the scandal hit, and that was before any hint of sanctions. The Big Ten schools held a vote and 5 of them allegedly vote us out (at the time you needed something like 8 or 9 votes). So yes, there would be a member vote and yes, the Big Ten would kick you out if you didn't play football.
I'm sorry then that your state would screw hundreds of athletes at Rutgers out of their scholarships because of politics. Same thing with coaches, trainers and other athletic specific job that would be eliminated. That would be pathetic.
So there's no bylaws forcing a school out if it temporarily suspends football in Big10, Eliminating fball logically would end a Big10 membership, but you don't know if a 2,3, 4 year suspension would. Big10 did not vote your school out, can't believe they would even if the NCAA acted in a way befitting the heinous crimes with a 2,3, 4 year shutdown order. A 2,3,4 year self-imposed suspension would be a blatant breach of fiduciary duty-is that an opinion or would long-term financial stability be so permanently impaired as to raise legal liability?
I call b.s. When's the last time the Big10 kicked-out a school for not being competitive in football? Your school could raise student fees, issue s/t bonds, lobby the state for more aid, etc to pay for non-FB sports for 2, 3, 4 years. Your school just won't touch the sacred football cow-which circles right back to the heart of the criminal scandal: your school placed the FB program above bringing an end to the abuse of many children at the hands of a pedophile.
Did you not see where they almost kicked us out before there was even a thought of sanctions???
So it's your opinion that the Big10 would get rid of your school even though it hasn't in how many years/ever (I'm not going to bother to look it up). OK maybe your school owes some money on the cancelled games, maybe not depending on what the other schools can reschedule. With a 95k student enrollment the extra fees are well under $1k/yr/student, closer to $500-600 without even looking at the Univ endowment, etc. The message to the victims, the school community, and the NCAA is loud and clear. The money is there--a lot of work and some pain but no catastrophe, your school just doesn't want to touch the sacred football cow.
We are already the 2nd most expensive public university in the nation and now you want us to tack on "only" another $1000 in student fees? Hell, why not just tack on another $1000 to Rutgers students for just one year and you will have enough to build the RU basketball practice facility!
Now you're beginning a new spin cycle. I wrote well under $1,000 closer to $500-$600/yr ($250-$300/semester) without even looking to the school endowment and other resources. No one said it would be comfortable, but one can also argue that much of the money made by your fball program during the Sandusky cover-up was part of an ongoing criminal conspiracy.
You clearly do not understand how endowments work and how their spending is legally tied to their guidelines, so I will just leave that one alone. As for the money made for football, are you insinuating that if Sandusky was arrested in 2001 (after he retired) that PSU would have made less money on football?
There is NO ARGUMENT that much of the money made during the entire Sandusky cover-up period was part of a criminal conspiracy. And oh how disappointed Mad and Zapp must be with the blatant misrepresentation attempted by their highly esteemed visiting poster.
Enlighten us on the endowment legalities, specifically those monies segregated to the general fund. Why do you avoid the few hundred bucks/semester special fee? RU students are already paying that for athletics (as per the media crybabies). The Sandusky cover-up started well before 2001 unless you believe in unicorns.
There is no money segregated to the general fund. Typically, each endowment has a principal account and a spending account. The principal of the endowment is bought into the long term investment pool and units are assigned to the principal based on the unit value at the time of the buy-in. The income generated by the principal is then sent to the spending account. That money is then restricted to be spent as specified in the guidelines for the endowment. The guidelines are a contract between the donor and the University that is legally binding. The principal for these endowments are generally agreed to be kept in perpetuity meaning that the principal cannot be spent and much remain in the long term investment pool. So if Rutgers has a $1 billion endowment (that number is made up, I don't know what the real number is), they do not have that amount available to spend, but rather closer to $50 million, and that $50 million is mostly restricted.
So, what you are saying is that no one is still at PSU that was associated with the scandal, right? And thank you for pointing out that Sandusky is part of our history. I can tell you that current recruits sure don't seem to care about that.
There's more to the administration of a endowment funds. Unless the donor specifies a particular percentage or dollar amount that is to be spent periodically from the endowment, the governing body of the foundation is responsible for determining the amount that may be spent currently from an endowment. In doing so, the board must act reasonably,..."
Yes, i know how a spending rate is determined for endowments on an annual basis. Most universities shoot for about 5% of the total endowment (the amount in the long term investing pool), but that number fluctuates with the state of the economy. Universities have to balance keeping the individual endowments from going underwater and also providing adequate spending for the endowment. If you are suggesting that the University would choose to put the LTIP at risk of going underwater just to pay for some sports, that is beyond laughable.
There you go again, off on a ridiculous tangent to duck the points you can't handle. Sorry Zapp and Mad this guy's a joke. Go ahead and provide an itemized analysis of Ped's endowment budgets, the specific rules, special provisions available in emergency situations etc. Then keep repeating to yourself that Ped St gets kicked out of Big10 even though the conference didn't vote Ped out, is supportive at this point (hey it's good business to have many good teams especially since the NCAA only wrist-slapped 'em) and that there's no money, no how, no way to have done the noble thing of temporarily shutting down the sacred cow that let a sick pedophile run loose. No let's not show that Penn St is more about leadership and morality, keep the Ped st image of still worshipping its football program. Shameful.
In your fantasy land, shutting down the program is an option. That's not reality and frankly, you are naive if you think it is. And please, save the crying about me giving you a lesson on endowments when you specifically asked me to explain it.
Who's crying? Your "lesson" is a joke, you skipped over athletic endowments and general donor agreement provisions just for starters. Only in Ped zombie land is football a sacred cow around which the whole school revolves.
It doesn't matter if it is an athletic endowment or not. Athletic endowments are already factored into the revenue for the athletic department. It's not like you have an endowment sitting around not doing anything. It will pay for what it pays for regardless of what happens. And if those endowments are football specific, they cannot even be used. If you want to use those funds for something else, you would need a revision and agreement from the donor which is highly unlikely that you would get. In fact, you would probably piss off the donor in the process.
"Hey, I know that we just killed the sports program that you donated for and made them irrelavant for at least 10 years, but could you send us a large donation to help pay for the other sports?"
Yeh we killed the Ped program that covered-up a serial pedophile rapist by shutting down for a couple years."Hey, I know that we just killed the sports program that you donated for and made them irrelavant for at least 10 years, but could you send us a large donation to help pay for the other sports?"
[roll]
Perhaps you are just too emotionally tied to the issue to make rational decisions. In that case, it's best that you just step away.Yeh we killed the Ped program that covered-up a serial pedophile rapist by shutting down for a couple years.
You make my point. You are focused on whether they had enough evidence to arrest Paterno??? I'm more concerned that a child protection professional interviewed Sandusky and his victim and came to the conclusion that there was nothing to be alarmed about. Children are counting on these agencies and investigating their failure and fixing it is priority number one.
There is actually another email in the Fresh report that references getting back with "coach". Fresh assumed this to be Paterno. Bad assumption because nobody call Paterno anything but "Joe".
