Barry did a story on the Board of Trustees meeting. References to possible new deal for Franklin.

Oct 12, 2021
1,854
3,146
113
"Wouldn't it be more prudent and responsible for Penn State to devote their full efforts towards working on the issues that folks - students, parents, etc - have with Higher Education. Things like affordability and quality of education. Rather than to divert energy trying to "PR" those folks into believing those are not significant issues?".

1637531470026.png
 

Nitwit

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
1,481
2,223
113
Why can’t we do both? We all know that a successful athletic program, especially football, leads to higher donations and a larger more competitive student applicant pool. Striving to be the best in athletics does not mean sacrificing academics.
 

GrimReaper

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
6,419
8,873
113
Why can’t we do both? We all know that a successful athletic program, especially football, leads to higher donations and a larger more competitive student applicant pool. Striving to be the best in athletics does not mean sacrificing academics.

There is no evidence that either is the case. Years ago, a number of studies were done regarding athletic success and donations. The results were inconclusive.

But since you and Brandon Short believe it, that should be good enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69

PSUFTG

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2021
1,461
2,266
113
Why can’t we do both? We all know that a successful athletic program, especially football, leads to higher donations and a larger more competitive student applicant pool. Striving to be the best in athletics does not mean sacrificing academics.
Read the linked post. It has absolutely nothing to do with trading off between those two things. Not at all. These were two entirely different subjects, one dealing with Penn State - and other universities - focusing on PR rather than addressing real issues. The other, completely unrelated topic, was about the Board's Compensation Committee holding closed door meetings with Sandy Barbour, indicating that something was afoot with regard to an athletics contract.

Two completely different subjects. I don't know how you came to the conclusion of the issue being a trade-off of the two subjects you mentioned.
 

PSUFTG

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2021
1,461
2,266
113
There is no evidence that either is the case. Years ago, a number of studies were done regarding athletic success and donations. The results were inconclusive.

But since you and Brandon Short believe it, that should be good enough.
I believe your point to be accurate. But, either way, that really isn't the issue facing Penn State at the moment. I don't know why the previous poster went down that rabbit hole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TiogaLion

Nitwit

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
1,481
2,223
113
There is no evidence that either is the case. Years ago, a number of studies were done regarding athletic success and donations. The results were inconclusive.

But since you and Brandon Short believe it, that should be good enough.
I believe it was the case that after Villanova won the basketball championship several years ago that both it’s alumni contributions and especially its student applications rose dramatically. People across the country who had never even heard of Villanova before suddenly took an interest in attending and their volume of applicants increased. I don’t have access to any studies in this regard however so feel free to take issue with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psu00

GrimReaper

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
6,419
8,873
113
I believe it was the case that after Villanova won the basketball championship several years ago that both it’s alumni contributions and especially its student applications rose dramatically. People across the country who had never even heard of Villanova before suddenly took an interest in attending and their volume of applicants increased. I don’t have access to any studies in this regard however so feel free to take issue with it.

How about 1985?

I don't doubt that applications went up after the 2016 championship. How about the quality of applicants?

As for donations, I'm sure that Villanova being in the middle of a major five-year fund-raising campaign had nothing to do with it.
 

BobPSU92

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
17,261
26,130
113
How about 1985?

I don't doubt that applications went up after the 2016 championship. How about the quality of applicants?

As for donations, I'm sure that Villanova being in the middle of a major five-year fund-raising campaign had nothing to do with it.

barren laughs at quality. Quality doesn’t pay the bills. Money does, sometimes.
 

Steve B

Active member
Nov 1, 2021
269
340
63
There is no evidence that either is the case. Years ago, a number of studies were done regarding athletic success and donations. The results were inconclusive.

But since you and Brandon Short believe it, that should be good enough.
I served on the Advisory Board for a decade at one of the Commonwealth campuses. I can tell you we were told by folks in Admissions that applications rose when the football team had a good season.
 

Pennoyer

Active member
Oct 16, 2021
54
287
53
There is no evidence that either is the case. Years ago, a number of studies were done regarding athletic success and donations. The results were inconclusive.

But since you and Brandon Short believe it, that should be good enough.
You’re wrong. But by all means continue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bison13

Bvillebaron

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
1,610
1,755
113
Why can’t we do both? We all know that a successful athletic program, especially football, leads to higher donations and a larger more competitive student applicant pool. Striving to be the best in athletics does not mean sacrificing academics.
Read an excellent article by Ben Jones today about this subject. Basically, he said Penn State has to decide what it wants to be as a football program. Unfortunately, this is 2021 and, if you want to play with the likes of OSU, Clemson, Georgia, Alabama, etc., you have to pony up the money and improve the facilities. I don't like that per se, but think it's just the reality of the situation and it is needed even were PSU to move on from Franklin now or whenever he is no longer the head coach.
 

BobPSU92

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
17,261
26,130
113
Read an excellent article by Ben Jones today about this subject. Basically, he said Penn State has to decide what it wants to be as a football program. Unfortunately, this is 2021 and, if you want to play with the likes of OSU, Clemson, Georgia, Alabama, etc., you have to pony up the money and improve the facilities. I don't like that per se, but think it's just the reality of the situation and it is needed even were PSU to move on from Franklin now or whenever he is no longer the head coach.

barren, Sandy, and the bot have got this.
 

PSU Mike

Well-known member
Oct 6, 2021
2,338
3,854
113
How about 1985?

I don't doubt that applications went up after the 2016 championship. How about the quality of applicants?

As for donations, I'm sure that Villanova being in the middle of a major five-year fund-raising campaign had nothing to do with it.
Regarding the quality of applicants - it doesn’t necessarily require that additional applicants be from a better distribution than the existing ones, just that there are some incremental applicants above the lowest tier that were previously offered/admitted. Of course there is there is an element of resources needed to evaluate the apps, so there’s a little more than that to it. Gotta think the avg cost of evaluating an additional application is declining, or at worst flat.
 
Oct 12, 2021
69
135
33
For whatever reason, there are a handful of users on this board that I don't recognize from the previous that all agree with each other mostly on the topic of NOT giving more funding to the football program. They don't show up in any other threads/topics but ones in regard to contract extensions, football funding, facilities, etc. Anti Franklin, anti- football funding, anti Brandon Short, anti donations, etc. It's bizarre.
 

PSUFTG

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2021
1,461
2,266
113
Read an excellent article by Ben Jones today about this subject. Basically, he said Penn State has to decide what it wants to be as a football program. Unfortunately, this is 2021 and, if you want to play with the likes of OSU, Clemson, Georgia, Alabama, etc., you have to pony up the money and improve the facilities. I don't like that per se, but think it's just the reality of the situation and it is needed even were PSU to move on from Franklin now or whenever he is no longer the head coach.
Ben Jones makes Marshall look like a Franklin-Hater
 

PSUFTG

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2021
1,461
2,266
113

Just as a heads-up, it is highly unlikely that today's Board meeting (it is actually a Board COMMITTEE meeting) will provide any actual precise info.
Any items they do discuss, before they become final, will also have to be approved by the Board at large, which could happen tonight, tomorrow - or not for several days.
 
Oct 12, 2021
1,854
3,146
113
For whatever reason, there are a handful of users on this board that I don't recognize from the previous that all agree with each other mostly on the topic of NOT giving more funding to the football program. They don't show up in any other threads/topics but ones in regard to contract extensions, football funding, facilities, etc. Anti Franklin, anti- football funding, anti Brandon Short, anti donations, etc. It's bizarre.
I appreciate a well-reasoned argument against "excessive" football funding. Beyond that, some here (as some were on the old McAndrew Board) are vocal and proud when they express that they will never donate to Penn State again. It seems that they've really been hurt by PSU. Understood. What I don't understand is the disappointment that some express when other alums make donations to Penn State. That's really some deep seated anti-PSU emotion.
 
Last edited:

PSUFTG

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2021
1,461
2,266
113

For what it is worth, Franklin was asked - at least twice - to name a single item/resource that Penn State football lacks relative to their peers. He had to know these questions were coming, but on both occasions he couldn't, or wouldn't, name a single one.

And now he was just asked a third time - and again deflected. Something just doesn't add up. Franklin is certainly not stupid, and he has shown, in the past, the ability to articulate issues and concerns. But, on this topic, he comes off like the drunk fan at the tailgate.
 

Leothelion

Member
Oct 25, 2021
20
37
13
Masterful salesman indeed if he can get a raise and extension after the last two season's results.
 
Oct 12, 2021
69
135
33
For what it is worth, Franklin was asked - at least twice - to name a single item/resource that Penn State football lacks relative to their peers. He had to know these questions were coming, but on both occasions he couldn't, or wouldn't, name a single one.

And now he was just asked a third time - and again deflected. Something just doesn't add up. Franklin is certainly not stupid, and he has shown, in the past, the ability to articulate issues and concerns. But, on this topic, he comes off like the drunk fan at the tailgate.

Maybe he's been asked to not respond to the media about it - Nothing official has been announced to this point, right?

Why does this topic bug you so much? If you don't donate, reasoning aside, then what's the point of bitching about it on here?
 

kgilbert78

Well-known member
Oct 25, 2021
633
1,027
93
I appreciate a well-reasoned argument against "excessive" football funding. Beyond that, some here (as some were on the old McAndrew Board) are vocal and proud when they express that they will never donate to Penn State again. It seems that they've really been hurt by PSU. Understood. What I don't understand is the disappointment that some express when other alums make donations to Penn State. That's really some deep seated anti-PSU emotion.
I'm one of those who is at least unlikely to every give money to PSU again... and I've told them so. But I do continue to talk with the development folks, as I may be able to give needed input. But I have no problem with others who still donate--it's their money, after all.
 

BobPSU92

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
17,261
26,130
113
If PSU offers Franklin an extended, higher-dollar contract and a firm commitment to improve the football facilities, does this mean we no longer like barren and the bot?
 

Midnighter

Well-known member
Oct 7, 2021
9,643
15,395
113
Read an excellent article by Ben Jones today about this subject. Basically, he said Penn State has to decide what it wants to be as a football program. Unfortunately, this is 2021 and, if you want to play with the likes of OSU, Clemson, Georgia, Alabama, etc., you have to pony up the money and improve the facilities. I don't like that per se, but think it's just the reality of the situation and it is needed even were PSU to move on from Franklin now or whenever he is no longer the head coach.

I think another component here, and it's one Barry talks about a lot, is the much higher cost of doing similar projects in State College versus nearly every other big time football college campus. Excerpt below (believe the information is a bit old, but still relevant - way more expensive in State College than Tuscaloosa for example):

Why does it cost so much?
Or, more to the point:
Why does it cost so much MORE for Penn State to take on a project than it costs similar institutions to take on similar projects?


As shown above, several highly-successful collegiate football programs who recently undertook new construction / renovations to their football facilities. Let’s take a look at the costs:

For context, this is the scope of the Lasch Building project: Renovation of the 89,000 square foot facility, and the addition of a new 18,000 square foot strength training room.
At $106 Million, that is a cost of $990 per square foot.

The most similar project undertaken by another football program was LSU’s. Their project is the renovation of a 112,000 square foot facility, originally built in 2005, and the addition of an 18,000 square foot strength training room.
If fact, this project is nearly identical to the Lasch Building project.
The cost? $28 Million, $215 per square foot – less than 1/4th of the cost of the Lasch Project.

And, at that, the lavish project – and its cost – have caused much consternation in Baton Rouge:
https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/sports/lsu/article_116f4336-acd2-11e9-9b43-43677be4c82c.html

Why does the Lasch project cost four times as much? No one knows – more importantly, no one even asks. In fact, there is no indication that those people responsible for the project (Penn State Administration and Trustees) are even aware of the tremendous differential between Lasch costs, and the costs for similar projects undertaken by collegiate athletics programs throughout the country..

Alabama – the bell-cow of collegiate football – their renovations cost $16 million.
https://www.insider.com/photos-alab...oduct-features-stunning-attention-to-detail-3

The projects at Clemson and Florida were not “renovations” – they were completely new “from-the-ground-up” projects…. which should cost significantly more than a renovation of an existing building.

The costs at Clemson? $55 Million for a 145,000 square foot facility. $417 per square foot for a NEW facility – less than 1/2 what PSU is spending on a RENOVATION.
http://news.gmcnetwork.com/news/2017/02/clemson-unveils-new-55-million-football-operations-complex/
Florida’s costs? $85 million for a 140,000 square foot facility. $607 per square foot for a NEW facility – Penn State is spending at a rate 60% HIGHER, for a RENOVATION.
https://www.gainesville.com/story/s...-foundation-new-football-facility/4297697001/

Something, obviously, smells like week-old fish with regard to the costs being incurred by Penn State. As we have seen time and again with Penn State sponsored capital projects, the costs are grotesquely out-of-line relative to every peer institution (and we have discussed the strong indications of graft, corruption, waste, and mismanagement wrt several other non-athletics capital projects).
Even IF the project was a reasonable target for expenditures (and, as we have seen above, that is a very specious assumption, at best) how much MORE effective could that spending be if it wasn’t so grotesquely over-priced relative to its peers?
How much more “competitive” could Penn State be if its costs were in line with its peers – and they could redirect the additional $50-80 million dollars to other purposes (staffing, etc)?

The entire project stinks to high heaven – from a “Mission” standpoint, from a cost standpoint, and, maybe most of all, from the standpoint of the inane defenses put forth by Penn State Administration and Trustees to try to justify the project.

It is, in many ways, Exhibit A with regard to the issues fouling the University as a whole.

 
Oct 12, 2021
1,854
3,146
113
I think another component here, and it's one Barry talks about a lot, is the much higher cost of doing similar projects in State College versus nearly every other big time football college campus. Excerpt below (believe the information is a bit old, but still relevant - way more expensive in State College than Tuscaloosa for example):

Why does it cost so much?
Or, more to the point:
Why does it cost so much MORE for Penn State to take on a project than it costs similar institutions to take on similar projects?


As shown above, several highly-successful collegiate football programs who recently undertook new construction / renovations to their football facilities. Let’s take a look at the costs:

For context, this is the scope of the Lasch Building project: Renovation of the 89,000 square foot facility, and the addition of a new 18,000 square foot strength training room.
At $106 Million, that is a cost of $990 per square foot.

The most similar project undertaken by another football program was LSU’s. Their project is the renovation of a 112,000 square foot facility, originally built in 2005, and the addition of an 18,000 square foot strength training room.
If fact, this project is nearly identical to the Lasch Building project.
The cost? $28 Million, $215 per square foot – less than 1/4th of the cost of the Lasch Project.

And, at that, the lavish project – and its cost – have caused much consternation in Baton Rouge:
https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/sports/lsu/article_116f4336-acd2-11e9-9b43-43677be4c82c.html

Why does the Lasch project cost four times as much? No one knows – more importantly, no one even asks. In fact, there is no indication that those people responsible for the project (Penn State Administration and Trustees) are even aware of the tremendous differential between Lasch costs, and the costs for similar projects undertaken by collegiate athletics programs throughout the country..

Alabama – the bell-cow of collegiate football – their renovations cost $16 million.
https://www.insider.com/photos-alab...oduct-features-stunning-attention-to-detail-3

The projects at Clemson and Florida were not “renovations” – they were completely new “from-the-ground-up” projects…. which should cost significantly more than a renovation of an existing building.

The costs at Clemson? $55 Million for a 145,000 square foot facility. $417 per square foot for a NEW facility – less than 1/2 what PSU is spending on a RENOVATION.
http://news.gmcnetwork.com/news/2017/02/clemson-unveils-new-55-million-football-operations-complex/
Florida’s costs? $85 million for a 140,000 square foot facility. $607 per square foot for a NEW facility – Penn State is spending at a rate 60% HIGHER, for a RENOVATION.
https://www.gainesville.com/story/s...-foundation-new-football-facility/4297697001/

Something, obviously, smells like week-old fish with regard to the costs being incurred by Penn State. As we have seen time and again with Penn State sponsored capital projects, the costs are grotesquely out-of-line relative to every peer institution (and we have discussed the strong indications of graft, corruption, waste, and mismanagement wrt several other non-athletics capital projects).
Even IF the project was a reasonable target for expenditures (and, as we have seen above, that is a very specious assumption, at best) how much MORE effective could that spending be if it wasn’t so grotesquely over-priced relative to its peers?
How much more “competitive” could Penn State be if its costs were in line with its peers – and they could redirect the additional $50-80 million dollars to other purposes (staffing, etc)?

The entire project stinks to high heaven – from a “Mission” standpoint, from a cost standpoint, and, maybe most of all, from the standpoint of the inane defenses put forth by Penn State Administration and Trustees to try to justify the project.

It is, in many ways, Exhibit A with regard to the issues fouling the University as a whole.

Sounds like a good question to me.
 

Bvillebaron

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
1,610
1,755
113
Sounds like a good question to me.
Yeah a very good question. On the other hand, the University caved and paid a $60 million fine and lots more to victims, real and otherwise, without batting an eye. From my perspective, there is no valid explanation for the differential in costs. How about if someone does a little investigation?
 

Midnighter

Well-known member
Oct 7, 2021
9,643
15,395
113
Yeah a very good question. On the other hand, the University caved and paid a $60 million fine and lots more to victims, real and otherwise, without batting an eye. From my perspective, there is no valid explanation for the differential in costs. How about if someone does a little investigation?

Isn't (or wasn't) one of the former BOT members a big real estate developer or in construction and his company was often used in Penn State capital construction projects? Lubert?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUFTG

EddyS

Member
Oct 25, 2021
224
186
43
Masterful salesman indeed if he can get a raise and extension after the last two season's results.
Does he have incentive clauses?
If I could design his contract, I would give him a modest base salary and have 80% of his comp. tied up to a bonus scheme, where he makes say $10-$12 for the year if he gets in the CFP and then scaled down from there.
This job comp. should be clearly linked to success or failure, not just showing up Until you get fired.
 

WestSideLion

Well-known member
Oct 6, 2021
3,312
3,668
113
I think another component here, and it's one Barry talks about a lot, is the much higher cost of doing similar projects in State College versus nearly every other big time football college campus. Excerpt below (believe the information is a bit old, but still relevant - way more expensive in State College than Tuscaloosa for example):

Why does it cost so much?
Or, more to the point:
Why does it cost so much MORE for Penn State to take on a project than it costs similar institutions to take on similar projects?


As shown above, several highly-successful collegiate football programs who recently undertook new construction / renovations to their football facilities. Let’s take a look at the costs:

For context, this is the scope of the Lasch Building project: Renovation of the 89,000 square foot facility, and the addition of a new 18,000 square foot strength training room.
At $106 Million, that is a cost of $990 per square foot.

The most similar project undertaken by another football program was LSU’s. Their project is the renovation of a 112,000 square foot facility, originally built in 2005, and the addition of an 18,000 square foot strength training room.
If fact, this project is nearly identical to the Lasch Building project.
The cost? $28 Million, $215 per square foot – less than 1/4th of the cost of the Lasch Project.

And, at that, the lavish project – and its cost – have caused much consternation in Baton Rouge:
https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/sports/lsu/article_116f4336-acd2-11e9-9b43-43677be4c82c.html

Why does the Lasch project cost four times as much? No one knows – more importantly, no one even asks. In fact, there is no indication that those people responsible for the project (Penn State Administration and Trustees) are even aware of the tremendous differential between Lasch costs, and the costs for similar projects undertaken by collegiate athletics programs throughout the country..

Alabama – the bell-cow of collegiate football – their renovations cost $16 million.
https://www.insider.com/photos-alab...oduct-features-stunning-attention-to-detail-3

The projects at Clemson and Florida were not “renovations” – they were completely new “from-the-ground-up” projects…. which should cost significantly more than a renovation of an existing building.

The costs at Clemson? $55 Million for a 145,000 square foot facility. $417 per square foot for a NEW facility – less than 1/2 what PSU is spending on a RENOVATION.
http://news.gmcnetwork.com/news/2017/02/clemson-unveils-new-55-million-football-operations-complex/
Florida’s costs? $85 million for a 140,000 square foot facility. $607 per square foot for a NEW facility – Penn State is spending at a rate 60% HIGHER, for a RENOVATION.
https://www.gainesville.com/story/s...-foundation-new-football-facility/4297697001/

Something, obviously, smells like week-old fish with regard to the costs being incurred by Penn State. As we have seen time and again with Penn State sponsored capital projects, the costs are grotesquely out-of-line relative to every peer institution (and we have discussed the strong indications of graft, corruption, waste, and mismanagement wrt several other non-athletics capital projects).
Even IF the project was a reasonable target for expenditures (and, as we have seen above, that is a very specious assumption, at best) how much MORE effective could that spending be if it wasn’t so grotesquely over-priced relative to its peers?
How much more “competitive” could Penn State be if its costs were in line with its peers – and they could redirect the additional $50-80 million dollars to other purposes (staffing, etc)?

The entire project stinks to high heaven – from a “Mission” standpoint, from a cost standpoint, and, maybe most of all, from the standpoint of the inane defenses put forth by Penn State Administration and Trustees to try to justify the project.

It is, in many ways, Exhibit A with regard to the issues fouling the University as a whole.

Wow. Just wow. It’s hard to argue with the simplicity of those points and benchmarks.

It’s hard not to rush to the “incompetence or worse” conclusion.
 

Midnighter

Well-known member
Oct 7, 2021
9,643
15,395
113
Wow. Just wow. It’s hard to argue with the simplicity of those points and benchmarks.

It’s hard not to rush to the “incompetence or worse” conclusion.

What's amazing is that most of these capital construction projects, all of which have higher than average construction costs, are mostly rubber stamped. The one time I can recall when they weren't? Jay's veto of the athletics facilities improvements. He had good reasons ($$$$), but he doesn't apply that rationale evenly.
 

Midnighter

Well-known member
Oct 7, 2021
9,643
15,395
113
Bleacher Report indicating Franklin will sign an 'enhanced' contract that will be finalized soon. Can't link for whatever reason...

 

Bvillebaron

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
1,610
1,755
113
Does he have incentive clauses?
If I could design his contract, I would give him a modest base salary and have 80% of his comp. tied up to a bonus scheme, where he makes say $10-$12 for the year if he gets in the CFP and then scaled down from there.
This job comp. should be clearly linked to success or failure, not just showing up Until you get fired.
It's my understanding that his current contract does have incentive clauses. I guess we won't know the details until the terms of any new contract are announced. Your claim that Franklin is "just showing up" until he gets fired is asinine.
 
Get unlimited access today.

Pick the right plan for you.

Already a member? Login