6.7 Bil in Cash and investments in 2014- 6th wealthiest Public University in the Nation per US News and World Report - April. Again, you guys just Bitch and Moan and don't have any clue what you are talking about. NONE.LOL The entire University endowment - IIRC - is in the neighborhood of $3-3.5 Billion.
The Witch Doctor must be buying into that story about where all the Payout/Fine/Legal Expense money is coming from......that magical cash-crapping unicorn that Dandrea and Masser have locked up in Old Main.
Wasn't it WD who set the parameters for calling someone a "dumb ass"? If so, I think we all now have established that we pass that bar.....so, WD, my friend,.......you sir are one "dumb ass".
Collegian feature on Sandy Barbour
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
Too funny. You don't have to worry about her staying FAR away from any of your ilk. Keep whining little boys. Keep whining.
Little boys? Oh man. Now you are really showing your character, aren't you?
Sandy's got a clique, I guess.
Sandy's got a clique, I guess.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/campus/article_efa72ac8-b007-11e4-8902-33367047193e.html
Posted: Monday, February 9, 2015 3:00 am
By Matthew Fowler | Collegian Staff Writer collegian.psu.edu
"Penn State’s future just got a little more ensured thanks to a 16.5 percent increase this past year in the university’s endowment.
The endowment, according to the Giving to Penn State website, “exists in perpetuity: The fund is invested for long term growth… [that will] endure for the life of the university.”
In a report recently published by the National Association of College and University Business Officers, Penn State’s endowment stood at $2.9 billion in 2013. By 2014, that fund has increased 16.5 percent to now $3.4 billion. Placing the university No. 27 on NACUBO’s ranking of schools by endowment, one spot below John Hopkins University and one spot above New York University."
Dumb Ass
Wasn't that you who said you were "going away"? Just earlier this afternoon?
LOL
Nice try. Of PSU's investments of $5.3bn. $5.1bn are either designated for special purpose or permanently restricted. PSU has net working capital of about $1bn. In any case, none of that has anything to do with "the running of a 35+ sport university athletic dept." Oh, and by the way, it's 31 sports.
[
QUOTE="TheWitchDoctor, post: 121734, member: 11776"]My god. Your question alone, proves your lack of knowledge in the running of a 35+ sport university athletic dept. You win. By reading and dialoguing on this board, one becomes dumber. I'm out before I am infected.[/QUOTE]
You forgot
[/QUOTE]
Whine, Whine, whine. Take a break, pick on the new lady AD. Whine, Whine, Whine. Take a break. Complain that the statue isn't back. Whine, Whine. Take break. BOT this, BOT that. Take a break. Whine, Whine, Whine. Take a break. Complain about Louis Freeh and Emmert. Whine, Whine, Whine. Take a break. On and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on……………………………………………….
Cronk,
Some numbers for you to ponder.
PSU fields 31 varsity teams. Bama, FSU and UF 20/21. OSU fields 37 varsity teams.
OSU's ticket sales are about $55mm. PSU's $34mm.
Bama. OSU, and UF run surpluses in the $25mm vicinity.
Whine, Whine, whine. Take a break, pick on the new lady AD. Whine, Whine, Whine. Take a break. Complain that the statue isn't back. Whine, Whine. Take break. BOT this, BOT that. Take a break. Whine, Whine, Whine. Take a break. Complain about Louis Freeh and Emmert. Whine, Whine, Whine. Take a break. On and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on……………………………………………….[/QUOTE]
When you can't answer the questions or understand the data, deflect.
FFS. Speaking of someone without a clue...
We were talking about the Athletic Director and the Athletic Department budget and you cite a number for the entire university?
So it would be OK with you if Penn State athletics was losing $200 mn/year as long as the rest of the university still had money in the bank?
What the heck is wrong with you?
Interesting way you've couched this debate: anyone who says anything even remotely critical of anything or anyone associated with Penn State is a whiner and is doing so because they are obsessed with Paterno and desperately want him to come back to life (he's dead, you know). Does that about sum up your position? Sure makes it easy not to have to counter anyone's arguments. You can just say "whiner."
Where's that ignore button??
REMOTELY CRITICAL?? OK, that wins the award. Remotely critical. All this board is, is "Remotely Critical", making it ENTIRELY critical. Absolutely, hysterical. All I did was defend our AD from some A-hole calling her a "Dumb Ass and Dumb Shit" and out come the loonies.
Let the whining commence!
I thought that comment about Barbour was inappropriate and unfair and should not have been posted or allowed to remain up. But why does your defense of her have to include a mocking of Paterno? How does that help your desire to make this board less critical, by intentionally pushing people's buttons about the death of man who gave 61 years of his life to the school that you are claiming to defend?
I love Joe. Always will. But, to use him to bash most everything still good about PSU, and the hard working people doing their best, drains me. Using Joe hits a nerve. I know, I'll stop. But the CONSTANT haranguing of everyone involved now trying to make it right, galls me.
Oh, quit it. You don't love Joe. In fact, you despise him. All of the lesser people at Penn State now have their marching orders to do the same.
I guess. Funny thing is I've lost people in my life that I've loved; we all have. And I can't envision the scenario where I would use the death of my loved one as a weapon to mock others who loved him or her. To each his own.
Who's trying to make it right? Your entire position in this thread has been factually incorrect, and you've attempted to deflect whenever its pointed out. What's even funnier is your flacid defense that its other people's fault. Now your trying to pretend you really love Joe. One, no one believes you. Two, no one cares. Next thing you know you'll be trying to claim you were good friends with Joe and even had dinner at his house. Where have all the good trolls gone?
Lubrano, you need to make bringing Tim Curley back into the fold a very high priority. It's disgraceful how he was fired after so many years of great service. Get it done.
Many of the same people concerned about fiscal responsibility would have hung her in effigy if she didn't come up with the money to keep Shoop. Just sayin.
I'm concerned about the department being self sufficient. But I also know that you need to spend money to make money. Success on the field will bring more money. And an athletic department structured for 2015 and not 1985 is also necessary. Some short term deficit spending may be necessary.
I get it, many Penn Staters are used to stability and resist change. No where else does adding trim to a football uniform spark huge debates, let alone adding, gasp, names. And I say that as someone who likes the plain uniforms, and what they stand for. But, I would like to see an updated uniform for a game or two each year--and personally I find the names make it easier watching the game. We're not used to coaching carousels, new faces in the AD office, uniform changes... hell, some people still want the end zones to go back to the way they were in the 60's and 70's. And we lived in a bubble that kept things from changing.
Then, all of a sudden, we had the rug pulled out from under us and a program and department that hadn't seen change in decades was suddenly in unfamiliar territory, and being thrust into modern day with, the horror, outsiders coming in. On top of that, we had our pristine reputation drug through the mud, and have had to weather personal attacks. Some people are having trouble dealing with it. But they need to calm down a little and realize the sky isn't falling, that the world changed and Penn State had to change in some ways too, to catch up. Doesn't mean we can't honor the past, and keep certain traditions and values. But it also doesn't mean that NOTHING will change.
I'm concerned about the department being self sufficient. But I also know that you need to spend money to make money. Success on the field will bring more money. And an athletic department structured for 2015 and not 1985 is also necessary. Some short term deficit spending may be necessary.
I get it, many Penn Staters are used to stability and resist change. No where else does adding trim to a football uniform spark huge debates, let alone adding, gasp, names. And I say that as someone who likes the plain uniforms, and what they stand for. But, I would like to see an updated uniform for a game or two each year--and personally I find the names make it easier watching the game. We're not used to coaching carousels, new faces in the AD office, uniform changes... hell, some people still want the end zones to go back to the way they were in the 60's and 70's. And we lived in a bubble that kept things from changing.
Then, all of a sudden, we had the rug pulled out from under us and a program and department that hadn't seen change in decades was suddenly in unfamiliar territory, and being thrust into modern day with, the horror, outsiders coming in. On top of that, we had our pristine reputation drug through the mud, and have had to weather personal attacks. Some people are having trouble dealing with it. But they need to calm down a little and realize the sky isn't falling, that the world changed and Penn State had to change in some ways too, to catch up. Doesn't mean we can't honor the past, and keep certain traditions and values. But it also doesn't mean that NOTHING will change.
The last thing I want Barron and Barbour worrying about is opinions expressed about them by posters on this sports message board.
There is one, and only one, reason that Penn State athletics is in the red. It's the $60+mn that was extorted from us. Let's not pretend that's no big deal, m'kay?
I really don't give a crap about names on uniforms. That's a red herring.
I do give a crap about having our name drug through the mud, and to me, that is indeed the sky falling.
THAT is what needs to be fixed. I have seen no signs that Old Main has any intention of fixing it. That is unacceptable.
I agree about the fine, and said the same in an earlier post. Even with the added expenses, that is what is putting us in the red. Along with the loss in bowl money. And lest anyone forgets, we were under an agreement to not cut sports or cut sports budgets to pay for it. Not sure if that part of the CD survives.
I also agree that our name being dragged through the mud needs fixed. But that is not an Athletics issue to fix, even though Athletics took the fall. Barbour and her team report up, and there's a limit to what they can say or do without losing their jobs, until and if the BOT is fixed. Why people don't seem to grasp that, I don't know.
I happen to think that letting Shoop find greener pastures would have been okay.That's not a reflection on the coaching job he's done. But if he's as good as we like to think he is, he'll get a HC offer and PSU will have to replace him. A successful program regularly replaces assistants.. Might as well learn to face the music
Is it not a bit short-sighted to judge Barbour solely through the lens of one of two issues (i.e., "defending Penn State")? I mean, let's remember that she is responsible for the success of 31 teams and dozens and dozens of student athletes who have pledged their loyalty to Penn State. Her job is to give all of those kids the best opportunity to have success, and to ensure that they have a great experience at Penn State. We can talk all day about the so-called "big" issues, but there is a day-to-day involved in her job that I am guessing few if any of us fully understand. To sit here and bash her for these peripheral issues, then, seems to me to be a bit ridiculous. I know there is a tendency here and elsewhere to view the "other" sports as less important than football and hoops, but in terms of Barbour's responsibilities, they really aren't. So if we're going to get into a discussion about how she's doing, we really should widen the scope.
Judging an athletic director is fairly simple and only requires four criteria: 1) do the teams win; 2) do the athletes graduate; 3) are the athletes good citizens; and 4) does the department make money? Using those, it's too early to reach any sort of verdict. Aside from that, there will always be actions and behavior that people applaud or don't like, but those are details,
Glad to see you responded but you answered my question with a question. I guess we already know the answer.
If things were really on the up and up then PSU & BOT wouldn't be pushing back so hard. Having grown up in State College I really had no idea what goes on with higher ups at PSU. Now it's obvious! Somethings rotten up there. Good luck with your transparency answer. There are some actions from" the Move On Crowd" "Nothing To See Here" that can't be defended and this is one of them.
Similar threads
