I never liked the statue and don't care if its put back up or not but if they do put it back why not the football museum?I have mixed feelings on this. Pretty sure statue is in storage at a Commonwealth Campus. Location and state funding have no bearing on each other. Statue would only see light of day again in a secure location where it could not be vandalized, IMO.
This plus 100I never liked the statue and don't care if its put back up or not but if they do put it back why not the football museum?
Also the plaque of the players should have NEVER been taken down. Put that back up before the statue.
PSU BOT = Boatload Of Transparency?I like this. Want a sh|t-ton of state money that could just as easily go elsewhere (or many elsewheres)? Let’s see some transparency.
Nitt, I realize your reply isn't 100% serious, but question for anyone -I get where he's coming from but even if it comes to pass, the university administration will still stonewall. It's what they do best. Expect something along the line of, "While it was displayed on university property, the statue wasn't owned by the university therefore it was never our responsibility to keep track of its whereabouts."
Good question. Who is responsible at PSU to responding to Senate Bill 1283? PSU Athletics?The timing of this is interesting. Why now? Maybe Bernstine thinks Neeli will do things differently (though we all know it won’t be her decision).
IIRC, it was a gift. Given that, I believe you're correct that the university could elect to display it as it sees fit. If they opt to display it in a nondescript storage room there's not much anyone can do about it. Maybe there were stipulations when the gift was made but a gift with strings attached isn't really a gift. If the university is forced to divulge the statue's whereabouts, they could simply say something like, "It's in a storage room at commonwealth campus "X". Afterward they would simply move it to a storage room at commonwealth campus "Y". I doubt it will ever be destroyed because of the very fact it WAS a gift. It would send a message that gifts to PSU are unappreciated and disposable.Nitt, I realize your reply isn't 100% serious, but question for anyone -
wasn't the statue a gift to the University, therefore theirs to own and dispose of as they want? I could be wrong on that, but I thought it was given to PSU, maybe specifically to Athletics, but not to the Paternos.
xGood question. Who is responsible at PSU to responding to Senate Bill 1283? PSU Athletics?
I may have related this story on here before, but here goes again anyway -I never liked the statue and don't care if its put back up or not but if they do put it back why not the football museum?
Also the plaque of the players should have NEVER been taken down. Put that back up before the statue.
Maybe the coasters could be based off of the plaques they took down? I'm in . . .I may have related this story on here before, but here goes again anyway -
A buddy of mine, former player now working for PSU, was on a trip with Joe for a University-related event. Probably early 2000s. Joe said to him about the statue - 'I wish they would melt that thing down, make coasters out it, and sell those to raise money for the University'! So, the statue itself meant little to Joe and family, it was always just a symbol for the fans. Honoring the teams is what mattered to Joe. He didn't need or want that kind of 'glory', as we all (well, most of us here) know.
Hey, I'd buy a set of those coasters. Maybe 2 sets. Anyone lurking on here from Kraft's admin?
Agree in principle......however I want it back up because they took it down.I never liked the statue and don't care if its put back up or not but if they do put it back why not the football museum?
Also the plaque of the players should have NEVER been taken down. Put that back up before the statue.
I like it - they could get creative with it in a number of ways. Sets of coasters with the yearly schedules and scores is a great start!Maybe the coasters could be based off of the plaques they took down? I'm in . . .
My preference would be to have Franco hold John Surma while I kick him in the nuts till I collapse from exhaustion.
I hear that.My preference would be to have Franco hold John Surma while I kick him in the nuts till I collapse from exhaustion.
I hear that.
Wifey and I had ice cream at the Creamery a couple weeks ago - first time I've been there in quite a long time. While we sat outside enjoying it, she asked me why I had not wanted to go there for so long. I pointed to the Rodless name desecrating the building and said - "that". She understood.
(That said, the cork is out of the bottle now on that personal protest now, so....)
Well, verbally volleyed those rotten eggs at that unspeakable name!At least you made the trip worthwhile by throwing eggs at the building.
All the university will do is raise tuition to make up the loss hurting the students that are already being gouged.
You right but by taking it down they made it more than just a statue.So dumb. Funding for the continued operation of a school should not have anything to do with a statue of a former coach. Threatening to impede the education of current and future students because you want to know where a statue is ... at its best, this is a hollow, awful political maneuver to score points with constituents (i.e. what's wrong with politics today), at its worst, it's a willingness to not educate students over some meaningless object, the subject of which didn't even want. Insanity.
I'm aware of a few large donors who have pulled their donations until Penn State mends the Paterno fence that are using the return of the statue as the success metric. Personal feelings about the aesthetics of the statue (which IMHO are legit) aside, it is a useful metric in this case.
And since you didn't ask, I don't think their position is unreasonable.
Exactly. It's not the statue itself, but it became the symbol for what they thought of/did to Joe. Otherwise, the statue is fairly meaningless. They chose to make it a touchpoint. And now it is.You right but by taking it down they made it more than just a statue.
Yep, I emailed the PSU President's office over the weekend before the statue was taken down and told them I'd never donate another dime to PSU if they didn't have the guts to stick up for Joe. And I stand by that promise. Obviously that PSU administration and BOT's were spineless, and I've seen no evidence of a major move to transparency since.I'm aware of a few large donors who have pulled their donations until Penn State mends the Paterno fence that are using the return of the statue as the success metric. Personal feelings about the aesthetics of the statue (which IMHO are legit) aside, it is a useful metric in this case.
And since you didn't ask, I don't think their position is unreasonable.
A similar thing has happened to the statue of Columbus that used to be outside City Hall in Columbus--it was a gift from the city of Genoa (who are not at all happy). Where is it? Some city warehouse somewhere. Unlikely it would be destroyed, BTW, for the same reason. The one at the Statehouse is still up.IIRC, it was a gift. Given that, I believe you're correct that the university could elect to display it as it sees fit. If they opt to display it in a nondescript storage room there's not much anyone can do about it. Maybe there were stipulations when the gift was made but a gift with strings attached isn't really a gift. If the university is forced to divulge the statue's whereabouts, they could simply say something like, "It's in a storage room at commonwealth campus "X". Afterward they would simply move it to a storage room at commonwealth campus "Y". I doubt it will ever be destroyed because of the very fact it WAS a gift. It would send a message that gifts to PSU are unappreciated and disposable.
I agree, but if it makes some folks at PSU squirm, it's worth itSo dumb. Funding for the continued operation of a school should not have anything to do with a statue of a former coach. Threatening to impede the education of current and future students because you want to know where a statue is ... at its best, this is a hollow, awful political maneuver to score points with constituents (i.e. what's wrong with politics today), at its worst, it's a willingness to not educate students over some meaningless object, the subject of which having voiced he didn't even want it. Insanity.