Maybe more, maybe less. Alternatively, would a white male with Barbour's credentials have been hired as PSU's AD?
Barbour - over $1 Million per year.
- Thread starter stormingnorm
- Start date
Maybe more, maybe less. Alternatively, would a white male with Barbour's credentials have been hired as PSU's AD?
It's just a symptom of what is happening at basically all large universities.
I don't particularly like the types of people involved, but Sandy is just participating in the same game as everyone else. It's a good living if you can get it.
I happen to believe that one day this is all going to evaporate, and universities will be left holding the bag on huge sports expenditures. It's the capital expenditures, not the salaries, that will really hurt
[QU'sOTE="fairfaxlion2, post: 4024008, member: 10584"]Meaning that she did, in fact, preside over the athletic department when that happened. And she was the AD who hired the coach who led that team.
So that is wrong, and everything else you wrote is either a non-fact or an attack aimed at me. Not sure what the point is.[/QUOTE]
Let's use your logic, then. She "presided" over the athletic department at Cal when grad rates of the football and basketball teams went through the floor, when athletic department debt went through the ceiling, and when her plan, which cost an additional $6mm to develop, to finance that debt cratered.
So that is wrong, and everything else you wrote is either a non-fact or an attack aimed at me. Not sure what the point is.[/QUOTE]
Let's use your logic, then. She "presided" over the athletic department at Cal when grad rates of the football and basketball teams went through the floor, when athletic department debt went through the ceiling, and when her plan, which cost an additional $6mm to develop, to finance that debt cratered.
Okay, let's play. Find a white male AD that has put his school in debt for 100 years.
It's probably regarded as a brilliant move in that line of work.
In seriousness, though, like I said - if they attempt to fully renovate Beaver Stadium we are done. If she is pushing that someone needs to stop her.
Thankfully, unlike Cal, our stadium does not sit on a major earthquake fault line, so I don't think we could be looking at exactly the same scene.
Wasn't her move. Generally people don't get fired before they make a brilliant move.
The cost to retrofit Memorial Stadium to protect against a seismic catastrophe represented half the total debt Cal took on. Barbour managed to find enough other tchotchkes to raise the ante to the final tally even though Cal's athletic department was already in deficit. And don't think that the cost to renovate Beaver Stadium will come in lower than Cal's bill. If you think otherwise, take a look at the conceptual drawings and specs for the Master Plan, particularly those facilities teed up for Phase I.
I really don't think that recruits get the same "perspective" of the stadium that the fans do. Doubt that they're going to the troughs if they have to relieve themselves. Nonetheless, we agree that Beaver Stadium needs to be, ahem, attended to.
What’s the market for naming rights these days? If this became for example, Fulton Bank Stadium, how much annually would the university be able to charge them?
No idea of what they plan to do with Beaver Stadium, but it will be expensive.
What I cannot understand is why they are teeing up projects that will never return money ahead of the cash cow.
For a college stadium, largest one to date is $41mm/10 years is Alaska Air at UDub, or $4mm p.a.
the stadium is used seven times a year
spending any money- other than what needs to be spent to keep it structurally sound- is foolish
the field is the correct size for football, and the players don't sit in the stands, use the troughs, or wait in line for nachos
the fans will buy tickets as long as the team wins and even when they don't
spending any money- other than what needs to be spent to keep it structurally sound- is foolish
the field is the correct size for football, and the players don't sit in the stands, use the troughs, or wait in line for nachos
the fans will buy tickets as long as the team wins and even when they don't
Just as a tangent:
I’d have to go back through some notes to get an accurate number - but if one added up what has been spent on “student housing” capital projects.... over and above what was necessary to provide housing to meet the student demand.....
It is probably at least 1/4 Billion (and probably more like 1/2 Billion, certainly by the time the rest of the East Halls boondoggle is completed)..... just in the last 4-5 years.
(SHUDDERS)
That may not be the most comforting harbinger.
Something a little more direct, from the Master Plan:
Center for Excellence- 450,000 sq ft.
Indoor Practice Facility- 108,000 sq ft
Natatorium- 133,000 sq ft
Indoor Tennis Facility- 100,000 sq ft
Unless they're planning to furnish these buildings at IKEA, ain't gonna be cheap.
We already have two candidates to lead it. They are both, coincidentally, mediocre.
That’s the problem with your thinking. You’re looking for a monetary return, as if this were a business rather than a university. You don’t recognize the nonmonetary value of these types of expenditures. Sure you can do things much cheaper, but at what cost?Maybe I need to clean my glasses....
But that is looking like something approaching $500,000,000 spent with absolutely $0 return.
I think you woulda’ liked this doozy from the ICA BOT pow-wow:
When asked what the biggest unmet need was ..... why a “Center for Excellence” was needed .... the best Babs could stutter into (literally) was:
“Everyone can be together in one place”.
No one asked what would happen to the places people were “currently at”.
Yes, that explains updates for swimming and tennis. However, I must say that "center for excellence" is a head-scratcher. What is the purpose?
No I’m quite serious, but you didn’t even comprehend the question. So don’t question my intellect because you can’t keep up. Let me try (again) to explain it to you. Now pay attention this time (see I can write as stoopidly as you).
What are you giving up by saving money? Apparently you don’t understand the nonmonetary value of higher education. That explains a lot. You would turn PSU into a community college if you were on the BOT, because it’s cheaper.
Saving money is the easy part of running a university. Anyone can cut costs, and we should want to where feasible, but few can do so without cutting the experience students, and others, receive from participating in the rich educational, athletic, and research endeavors provided by a well funded high quality academic institution.
And keep your childish insults to someone who is easily amused, like a 10 year old. You just make yourself look silly. You’ll never get elected to the BOT that way, unless people want a laughingstock, which I don’t think we really want. Our Board is bad enough without you making it worse.
Don’t embarrass yourself AGAIN. Get some professional help.
And that explains spending a shitload of money, perhaps not as much as Barry estimated, on a new natatorium, indoor tennis facility, and whatever this excellence center is supposed to provide? Do you have any idea of the magnitude of what is being proposed or are you drunk on the Fool Aid?
Arguing with someone who has never been wrong as far as he knows and with someone who thinks that anyone with a different point of view HAS to be evil or stupid is a pointless exercise.
It is entertaining, though.
Ordinarily, I'd take my part of that as a compliment, but coming from someone who uses as his signature a quote from a member of the Freikorps and an anti-semite I think I'll pass.
There are many valid points of view - or Opinions - wrt many topics.
“Points of View” like 2 + 2 = 5 - on the other hand - are not really points of view.
“2 + 2 = 5” is NOT an opinion.
They are simply wrong (for some reason, there have grown large elements in our contemporary society who seem to refuse to understand/acknowledge that...... maybe it’s one of the side-effects of the social media idiocy. IDK)
Further:
Holding/defending “Points of View” like 2 + 2 = 5...... when the errors are clearly shown to the purveyors of those “points of view”...... is more than Wrong.
It is simply Stoopid.
It is not in any way heroic or admirable.
____________________
Case in Point (though it should be self-evident):
One might debate that PSU should expend funds to build/renovate an aquatics facility.
One might posit that it would be proper to provide a facility that would meet needs X, and Y (for the case in point, lets assume X is a competitive arena for PSU aquatics sports, and Y is community resource for recreational swimming)
THAT is an opinion (or point-of-view). FWIW, it is a point-of-view that I could probably make an argument for myself, and would probably - to some degree or another - support (with, likely, some Differences of Opinion wrt the prioritization of such an undertaking, etc).
But, when those parameters and needs can be met with an expenditure of - lets say - $30 Million.... it is NOT an opinion that it would be a GOOD THING to achieve those exact same goals while expending $60 Million.
NOT when the funds being expended are OPM (if it is one's personal funds, it would be just as foolish - but individuals have the right to be as foolhardy with their OWN money as they choose to be
That is simply Wrong. Incorrect. Erroneous. Fallacious (whatever term one wants to use.... put it all together and call it Stoopid.
There is a difference between opinions, and wrong.
They are two different things - no matter how "circle-jerk" the dialogues become.
I don't think that anyone would argue that the Natatorium needs to be replaced. But doing it with a facility that, if built per conceptual spec, will be the most expensive competitive pool ever, even inflation adjusted, should raise questions. A first-rate facility, the best in the Big Ten, better than McCorkle (OSU) and Freeman (Minnehaha), could be built for considerably less.
Athletics should never have been blamed in the first place. That was the BoT's doing. So I'm perfectly okay with ICA never paying back that loan.
This is your opinion, which is fine. My opinion is that pursuing the stadium renovations won't sink the athletic department. It could if fundraising doesn't hit the target. But fundraising hasn't even begun, so can't really say pursuing the renovations will definitely sink PSU Athletics.
There are many people with negative opinions of Sandy because of what happened at Cal, and no matter what she has done or will do at PSU will chance those opinions. Many decided she was a bad hire on day 1 and will continue to think that regardless of things that have transpired since. I don't know if Art and stormingnorm are in that bucket, but there are some that are.
While I think the point you're making might be a bit extreme, sadly there is some element of truth to it. I do see repeated comments on this board about Sandy's gender, physical appearance and sexual orientation that are used as insults. It's deplorable and has nothing do with her job performance and has no place on this board. For some reason the mods don't delete them, but they should.
I believed from Day 1 that Barbour was a bad hire precisely because of her track record at Cal. I mean, shit, who hires people who ran their previous organizations into the ground?
That being said, her gender or sexual orientation are irrelevant as is her physical appearance (though she could use a better tailor and could improve her presentation skills; she does, after all, publicly represent PSU). For better or worse she is PSU's AD and I judge her on performance. So far, no great accomplishments or precipitous disasters. There are areas of concern, though. Fiscal discipline has been thrown to the wind, but not to the point that it's crippling...yet. The roll out of the Master Plan has been less then masterful. There may be good reason for that (waiting for Alston) or bumbling (inability to line up ducks and donors).
From my vantage point only the preface to the book has been written. Final judgement is premature. I'm perfectly willing to change my view, preferably in a positive direction.
Well to his question I agree that all that stuff is irrelevant and if some choose to judge her with those qualities, well that's their problem, but we should probably consider the climate to which she was hired under despite her actual qualifications. Should we suppose that since the giant heat lamp was focused dead square on the university, in Festers reign, that once Fester was gone, the university was maybe by chance wanting to fill the void with a non white male to dispell the good ole boys network optic and any other optics that lingered from 2011 regardless of qualification, ok not totally without regard, but they got someone close that checks say other types of boxes as to redirect the already positioned magnifying glass? I mean thats a reason to hire someone not totally qualified correct?
Ok so lets say thats the reason for the hire. Should we now also consider that's a reason for not terminating the contract? I mean we all know the University just loves giving out boatloads of money in lawsuits (TIC) but would they have a discriminatory lawsuit on their hands if they canned her? Would she play that card??
Its pretty evident for mediocre performance you can get a hefty raise and promotion, I mean what does it take to get canned?? (ala George Constanza)
I certainly believe that PSU wanted to hire a woman as AD for, among others, the reasons you suggest. I also believe they wanted someone who was totally malleable, who would do the masters, bidding with no push*back (although most ADs check that box off, regardless of race or gender).
I don'r believe this Facilities Master Plan, this endeavor to provide the biggest, best, and most expensive venues and training grounds for every sport regardless of how trivial, is her idea. Others are pushing her into it. Barron is an obvious candidate. I can't name other. The motivations are pretty obvious: Edifice Complex. Barron wants his name on a building or stadium and to win the dick size contests when he meets other presidents. Barry might suggest that others see the opportunity to rips off the University through construction contracts. I'm not in a position to make that case.
The major fly in my theory is the inability of the manipulators to be able to use Barbour as a scapegoat should a major part of the plan head south. If that happened, people would point to her tenure at Cal and say "what else did you expect.."
Would I terminate Barbour? No, we're not even close to being there yet, and it has nothing to do with the possibility of a lawsuit. Yes, she's let administrative expenses run out of control but PSU can survive that. As someone posted earlier, she's a bureaucrat and bureaucrats build empires. Here, again, look to her masters. They don't care if she racks up millions of unnecessary expense. These motherfvckers want their buildings.
