Can someone please summarize what's happening with the BOT and NIL? I'm hearing/reading so much information and having a difficult time sorting it out. Is if true that Jay Paterno and Anthony Lubriano are opposing improvements to facilities etc.?
What's up with the BOT and NI?
- Thread starter Alphalion75
- Start date
Jay and Lubrano are who we thought they were. Plenty of evidence out there that they actively are working against the current head coach.
Brandon Short and Mike Mauti have courageously spoken out to bring the issues to light. I’d suggest watching Brandon Shorts interview on YouTube or the one he gave 247.
1. The BoT has, or should have, nothing to do with NIL. That certain members (Jay, Lubrano, Short) are independently involved on the periphery should not be conflated with the larger BoT.
2. WRT facilities, IIRC Jay voted against the authorization to borrow $40mm for Phase II of the Lasch/Holuba renovations. Again, tho the best of my recollection his reasoning was that it was inappropriate in view of rising tuition and burgeoning PSU debt. Do not recall how Lubrano voted. Subsequently, Jay voted to approve a $7mm expenditure for improvement of the sound and lighting systems of the practice facilities. Do not recall if that involved additional debt. To the best of my recollection, only Barry Fenchak voted against that. Barry is free to correct me on any of details in this section.
3. IMO, this is a pissing contest among personalities. Nothing substantive is going on, which is par for the course.
I recall some mention that Jay was an NIL consultant when he was interviewed as co-founder of Success With Honor...Jay is idealistic to say the least, but I think his heart is in the right place (even if his head isn't).
Jay Paterno: Success With Honor eyes expansion | The NIL Deal
Jay Paterno, the son of legendary football coach Joe Paterno, is one of the Co-Founders of Penn State NIL collective Success With Honor.
www.nildealnow.com
I'm finally watching the Short interview with Bauer - Short mentions Franklin 'isn't getting the support' that he would get at other programs. WTF is going on? I mean, Penn State can't just give Franklin NIL money, and we supposedly have a robust alumni network (most of whom aren't flipping burgers as far as I can tell), so what's the issue? Too many competing NIL efforts? Penn State's biggest enemy has always been itself - it's far too isolated, insular, and incestuous compared to other major schools/programs. There is a group of parasites who have sucked and continue to suck the blood of the university for personal gain; seems like it's still the case. Sad.
Edit: Short endorses Ali Krieger, Uma Moriarity, and Randy Houston for BOT.
Edit: Short endorses Ali Krieger, Uma Moriarity, and Randy Houston for BOT.
Jay should just STFU.I recall some mention that Jay was an NIL consultant when he was interviewed as co-founder of Success With Honor...Jay is idealistic to say the least, but I think his heart is in the right place (even if his head isn't).
Jay Paterno: Success With Honor eyes expansion | The NIL Deal
Jay Paterno, the son of legendary football coach Joe Paterno, is one of the Co-Founders of Penn State NIL collective Success With Honor.
Here are some bits and pieces:
1. Jay has his own company called Blue Line 409 through which he provides consulting services. Among the areas of expertise he lists NIL. To what extent he has done NIL consulting I couldn't say.
2. SWH was established by Ira Lubert and four other PSU alums, none of them named Jay Paterno.
3. Some time after SWH was announced, and I don't recall whether it was days or weeks, Jay's involvement was publicized. I recall him extemporizing on his vision for SWH. He emphasized using NIL proceeds to advance education. Sounds good on surface, but it had me scratching my head. The he went on to give an example of using NIL monies to finance athletes study abroad. That one had me banging my head against the wall. Jay is/was clueless as was anyone who believed that SWH in it's original manifestation would benefit PSU
All good stuff. Why do people say he was a SWH co-founder? It's in this article, but neither he, nor Lubrano, are listed in any capacity on the SWH website.
Also, I don't disagree with you.
Pretty good summary from off the top of your head
Couple quick items:
EVERY spending package for athletics - let alone for football - has ALWAYS been passed. Always. No Trustee (not even I
) has prevented a single one.Jay voted against ONE package - and even then it was "kinda' sorta' voting against". That was, as you stated, the large spending package on Lasch.
That said, Jay didn't really vote against it (which I think he, and everyone else, SHOULD have done). Rather, he voted to DELAY the spending - seeing as how it was being approved right in the peak of the COVID hysteria - until we had a clearer picture of how that would effect the University (and athletics... remember what was going on back then).
Holding off on major discretionary, non-mission spending / debt - when we were entering a completely unknown, and potentially fiscal nightmare of a time - was prudent.
None of which, when it boils down, has a thing to do with "NIL" (which is a topic worthy of thorough deliberation in and of itself).
Last edited:
Suggest you re-read Short’s comments and get back to me.Pretty good summary from off the top of your head
Couple quick items:
EVERY spending package for athletics - let alone for football - has ALWAYS been passed. Always. No Trustee (not even I
Jay voted against ONE package - and even then it was "kinda' sorta' voting against". That was, as you stated, the large spending package on Lasch.
That said, Jay didn't really vote against it (which I think he, and everyone else, SHOULD have done). Rather, he voted to DELAY the spending - seeing as how it was being approved right in the peak of the COVID hysteria - until we had a clearer picture of how that would effect the University (and athletics... remember what was going on back then).
Holding off on major discretionary, non-mission spending / debt - when we were entering a completely unknown, and potentially fiscal nightmare of a time - was prudent.
On the other hand, when you have someone (Short) who repeatedly says (and maybe even believes) that spending $$$ on football should be the #1 priority of the University - and that no amount of spending on football is too much (of course, he calls it "investing"
None of which, when it boils down, has a thing to do with "NIL" (which is a topic worthy of thorough deliberation in and of itself).
Thanks for the insight. Many here never wish to be burdened by facts. One group must be 100% wrong and ill intentioned and the other sees wrong....and tries to right it....see suffering and try to heal it....see conflict and try to end it.Pretty good summary from off the top of your head
Couple quick items:
EVERY spending package for athletics - let alone for football - has ALWAYS been passed. Always. No Trustee (not even I
Jay voted against ONE package - and even then it was "kinda' sorta' voting against". That was, as you stated, the large spending package on Lasch.
That said, Jay didn't really vote against it (which I think he, and everyone else, SHOULD have done). Rather, he voted to DELAY the spending - seeing as how it was being approved right in the peak of the COVID hysteria - until we had a clearer picture of how that would effect the University (and athletics... remember what was going on back then).
Holding off on major discretionary, non-mission spending / debt - when we were entering a completely unknown, and potentially fiscal nightmare of a time - was prudent.
On the other hand, when you have someone (Short) who repeatedly says (and maybe even believes) that spending $$$ on football should be the #1 priority of the University - and that no amount of spending on football is too much (of course, he calls it "investing"
None of which, when it boils down, has a thing to do with "NIL" (which is a topic worthy of thorough deliberation in and of itself).
Short is blowing hot air. The vast majority of NIL transactions aren't public so no one has an overall picture of the level of support at all schools.
Let's talk segment as opposed to dollars. A large alumni-base where people are contributing $50-100 at a time is great, but it's not going to get it done in certain key areas. Let's use the example of Nijel Pack at Miami. He got an $800k deal over two years. You cannot do that with a collective gathering $50-100 amounts even if they total $800k. I mean how many jerseys and photos can a kid sign? How many meet-and-greet functions with how many attendees can he be at? So basically you need one big donor who is capable of writing a large check at a moment's notice. Unless they step forward like John Ruiz, they have to be solicited. Who does that? Any number of options, but ultimately it begins and circles back to the athletic department.
Where is PSU in this regard? Gonna guess it's falling short, otherwise no noise. Why? Is it a lack of effort or an absence of substantial donors. Effort can be fixed. Donors and their money can't and no amount of hot air will change that (on the contrary, it will drive them further to ground).
I gotta say I kind of agree with Short about spending money, investing in football. Doesn't Football bring in the most revenue of all sports and pretty much help support a lot of the other PSU athletic programs? I am thinking wrestling is now self sufficient at this point in time due to the success as well as men's hockey maybe?Pretty good summary from off the top of your head
Couple quick items:
EVERY spending package for athletics - let alone for football - has ALWAYS been passed. Always. No Trustee (not even I
Jay voted against ONE package - and even then it was "kinda' sorta' voting against". That was, as you stated, the large spending package on Lasch.
That said, Jay didn't really vote against it (which I think he, and everyone else, SHOULD have done). Rather, he voted to DELAY the spending - seeing as how it was being approved right in the peak of the COVID hysteria - until we had a clearer picture of how that would effect the University (and athletics... remember what was going on back then).
Holding off on major discretionary, non-mission spending / debt - when we were entering a completely unknown, and potentially fiscal nightmare of a time - was prudent.
On the other hand, when you have someone (Short) who repeatedly says (and maybe even believes) that spending $$$ on football should be the #1 priority of the University - and that no amount of spending on football is too much (of course, he calls it "investing"
None of which, when it boils down, has a thing to do with "NIL" (which is a topic worthy of thorough deliberation in and of itself).
Men's ice hockey breaks even, wrestling is in the hole by $1.3mm.
Having an activity that makes money subsidize perennial money losers is not a sound business practice. And those "investments" won't recoup P&I, let alone create a positive yield.
Unfortunately, its not that simple.
FWIW: To your specific question: Men's Ice Hockey shows a small "profit" - due to the Pegula Endowment - thank you Kim and Terry Pegula
If not for that, it certainly would not.Men's Basketball shows a "profit" - but only due to the B10 and NCAA revenue sharing (which accounts for 80-90% of revenue, and comes in whether PSU wins1 game or all of them, sells 1 ticket or all of them)
Other than that, only Football - which, hopefully, covers most of the other deficits.
Now, if you will indulge a deeper dive.
1) With regard to the $$$ spend, its all about the marginal impact. I'll use a recent example.
PSU recently made a new deal vav Men's Basketball coaches (head coach and assistants). The new cost is around $5.7 Million per year (maybe a bit more than that all in). 5 years ago, the all in cost was, IIRC, around $1.75 Million.
Without trying to rehash all the details here, even a rudimentary analysis of the ICA and Men's BB financials shows that there in no way on God's green Earth that such an "investment" would yield a positive return (so, it is not an "investment"). Not sure who, aside from me, even gave that a passing thought, to be honest.
Are there other reasons that make spending $5.7 MM in Men's BB coaches a wise move? IDK, maybe some could make a cogent argument (I'd be more than willing to listen and discuss - though I haven't heard any). But it surely is not a decision that can be supported financially.
2) Blanket statements (like "we can never spend enough on XXX") are - by nature - flawed. I think any reasonable person knows that without any further clarification.
But it is more than that - lets say we look at Lasch:
$80 million +/- spend on renovations. Does anyone actually believe that specific project "investment" will yield more than $80 million increase to NPV of net revenue? If so, I surely haven't seen anyone even try to compose such a defense - but it might be fun to watch. But that isn't even the half of it.
You can only spend a particular $ once. Three years ago, everyone was ga-ga about "facilities" (Which was always a specious argument, IMO. Other people's mileage may differ. But regardless). Now, a couple years later, no one talks about facilities - its "ga-ga time" about NIL, or about coach's salaries, or whatever will be the topic of the day tomorrow. Alas.
Oh, by the way, two words: "Beaver Stadium". One doesn't even need vision better than Mr Magoo to see that coming - but we have a lot of Stevie Wonders, apparently.
In any event, that doesn't even begin to get past the tip of the iceberg. One example: could we have accomplished the same mission for $40 million instead of $80 million? To the "you can never spend enough crowd" that is immaterial. But it is not immaterial in the real world. But they don't even pretend to have such a conversation. When "you can't spend enough" it doesn't matter.
Could the $80 million have been spent somewhere else, whether within athletics or elsewhere, where it would have more positive impact? IDK - but, again, to the "you can never spend enough crowd" it is immaterial.
Put that type of "thinking" (I use that term loosely) into play often enough and your have $100+ million deficits, $ Billions of dollars in debt, and plummeting performance in all of your core missions.
Alas It is what it is.
Thank you for your indulgence (and, yes, I know... TL/DR
)
Last edited:
Get unlimited access today.