ADVERTISEMENT

I VOTED AGAINST THE $49 MILLION LASCH EXPANSION— THIS IS THE EXPLANATION FOR MY VOTE

Not quite that cut and dry. Clemson spent $55mm on the Reeves Complex. When all is said and done, PSU will spend $105mm on the Lasch renovation. Advantage who?
Again, no disagreement that Clemson has found a way to do their projects cheaper than we have. It's not my field and I won't pretend to know the exact reasons why that is - whether it's a geographic difference in construction costs or what - though it does appear that construction projects in the south might be as much as 65% of what it costs to build in the north. If that holds up, you can expect for a comparative facility up here to cost, what, $85-90mm? Add in the $10 million that Clemson spent a few years earlier for its indoor practice facility, and you're getting close to the same numbers. Not saying that's the full answer, but it does make some degree of sense why the SEC schools are all building similar facilities for $55mm, while places like Penn State, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Oregon are spending $100+, because I'd wager to guess that the SEC schools aren't pinching pennies to the tune of tens of millions in ways that schools elsewhere aren't.

My point above was more that I think a lot of fans who agree with Jay and Lubrano are looking at the price tag and think that it includes a whole bunch of the obscene bells and whistles that you hear about with other projects elsewhere. It's an expensive project, sure, but it all looks very functional and football-focused.
 
You’re describing a more effective utilization of monetary resources, and I agree with you. I merely stated that there maybe severe repercussions if one is not in the race. Now foolishly wasting those resources as you often comment is another road to disaster. They both lead to calamity that only effective leadership may rectify.

I think you have to achieve a certain critical mass to train ad develop football players. The expensive lipstick is added on to entice recruits. Is it make or break? I'd argue that there are more important factors and that it's marginal, a tie-breaker in some cases.
 
Again, no disagreement that Clemson has found a way to do their projects cheaper than we have. It's not my field and I won't pretend to know the exact reasons why that is - whether it's a geographic difference in construction costs or what - though it does appear that construction projects in the south might be as much as 65% of what it costs to build in the north. If that holds up, you can expect for a comparative facility up here to cost, what, $85-90mm? Add in the $10 million that Clemson spent a few years earlier for its indoor practice facility, and you're getting close to the same numbers. Not saying that's the full answer, but it does make some degree of sense why the SEC schools are all building similar facilities for $55mm, while places like Penn State, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Oregon are spending $100+, because I'd wager to guess that the SEC schools aren't pinching pennies to the tune of tens of millions in ways that schools elsewhere aren't.

My point above was more that I think a lot of fans who agree with Jay and Lubrano are looking at the price tag and think that it includes a whole bunch of the obscene bells and whistles that you hear about with other projects elsewhere. It's an expensive project, sure, but it all looks very functional and football-focused.

Take a good look at Oregon and Nothwestern and it becomes apparent why they cost so much. No tinker toys there.

I don't think anyone is looking closely at the details of what's being installed and complaining that there is a lot of fluff. But $105mm, or $50mm, is a lot of money. The timing sucks, but I'm not beating that horse anymore. So then the question is how much is in that budget that is over and above what's needed for the core mission of training and developing football players? Put another way, how much is being spent to wow recruits? I'm guessing quite a bit. Is PSU going to get a return on that? Will recruiting get considerably better? My guess is marginally.
 
Don’t take your foot off the gas pedal and celebrate yet. With our propensity to spend money we may well exceed the $105 million. That may provide us with a more stupendous victory. Remember style points matter.


Run up the score.
 
Having thought about all this a bit further, I'm honestly of a mixed mind about it.

On the one hand, I like CJF- and I do want him to have what he needs for success, though my definition of what success looks like may not be as aggressive as his is.

On the other hand, I believe that nobody wins an arms race, particularly not those who aren't already on the top of the heap and who do not have the resources that some of their current and potential competitors do. If today's kids are so shallow (and I think that they are) that they can be turned by the next shiny thing, what's to keep the four or five richest schools from just outspending everybody else? So today's Taj Mahal will be next years trailer park anyway.

Add to that the rapidly changing landscape we are operating in and I'll not be writing any checks to support this spending- but I'm all in favor of those who see it differently writing some.

Another way to look at this is do you think Anthony and Jay’s ‘no’ votes represent the voices of the people/alums who voted for them?
 
So you shave without looking in the mirror. Good for you.
You can always identify a verbal genius and a true intellect when they resort to "I know you are, but what am I." It would be hysterical if it wasn't so sad.
 
Another way to look at this is do you think Anthony and Jay’s ‘no’ votes represent the voices of the people/alums who voted for them?
I have no idea, honestly. I have given up voting for the BOT myself, as the results have been an unending disappointment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Midnighter2


JoePa saw the positive impact football could have on the university’s image and stature. Think his January 1983 speech to the bot. However, I don’t recall him advocating big financial investments in football. Was he a vocal advocate of the stadium expansions? Joe advocated investment in academics to advance the university (e.g., libraries). I find it interesting to see Brandon Short, who played for Joe and has been successful outside of football, advocating investment in football but saying nothing about direct investment in academics.

I cannot argue with Brandon on the ROI of an investment in football, but will a football palace have a demonstrable positive impact on academics? If so, how soon?
 
Last edited:
JoePa saw the impact football could have on the university’s image and stature. Think his January 1983 speech to the bot. However, I don’t recall him advocating big financial investments in football. Was he a vocal advocate of the stadium expansions? Joe advocated investment in academics to advance the university (e.g., libraries). I find it interesting to see Brandon Short, who played for Joe and has been successful outside of football, advocating investment in football but saying nothing about direct investment in academics.

I cannot argue with Brandon on the ROI of an investment in football, but will a football palace have a demonstrable positive impact on academics? If so, how soon?
He absolutely did push for first-class facilities. Holuba was one of, if not the first, indoor football practice facilities in college football when it opened in the mid 80s. So at the same time Joe was giving that speech to the BOT, he was also developing plans to build the best facilities in college football. Then, Joe decided that the program had outlived the East Area Locker Room complex, and pushed for the construction of the Lasch Building in the late 90s. When Lasch opened, it was one of the largest and best facilities in college football.

Short said in an interview with TOS this week that Penn State’s football facilities were a major part of their recruiting pitch when he was being recruited out of high school, and that Penn State’s facilities were, at the time, the best and most extensive of any of the schools that recruited him. Joe certainly played a massive part in making those facilities happen.
 
He absolutely did push for first-class facilities. Holuba was one of, if not the first, indoor football practice facilities in college football when it opened in the mid 80s. So at the same time Joe was giving that speech to the BOT, he was also developing plans to build the best facilities in college football. Then, Joe decided that the program had outlived the East Area Locker Room complex, and pushed for the construction of the Lasch Building in the late 90s. When Lasch opened, it was one of the largest and best facilities in college football.

Short said in an interview with TOS this week that Penn State’s football facilities were a major part of their recruiting pitch when he was being recruited out of high school, and that Penn State’s facilities were, at the time, the best and most extensive of any of the schools that recruited him. Joe certainly played a massive part in making those facilities happen.
Yes, but near the end of his career the facilities began to significantly lag behind others. That’s the problem with an arms war, once you’ve entered the fray you must continually keep spending. Also if the money doesn’t produce immediate positive results people tend to get ugly. Believe it or not, even more so than here.
 
He absolutely did push for first-class facilities. Holuba was one of, if not the first, indoor football practice facilities in college football when it opened in the mid 80s. So at the same time Joe was giving that speech to the BOT, he was also developing plans to build the best facilities in college football. Then, Joe decided that the program had outlived the East Area Locker Room complex, and pushed for the construction of the Lasch Building in the late 90s. When Lasch opened, it was one of the largest and best facilities in college football.

Short said in an interview with TOS this week that Penn State’s football facilities were a major part of their recruiting pitch when he was being recruited out of high school, and that Penn State’s facilities were, at the time, the best and most extensive of any of the schools that recruited him. Joe certainly played a massive part in making those facilities happen.

The major difference between then and now was that Lasch and Holuba were paid for upfront.
 
These are the comments I made prior to my decision to vote AGAINST the proposed $49 million Lasch Building renovations.

My fellow Trustees, I stand opposed to this resolution at this time. My reasons are twofold. The first financial while the second is more philosophical.

As Pennsylvania's only land grant university, Penn State has a broad mission of teaching, research, and public service. Our duty as university fiduciaries is, among other responsibilities, to ensure the affordable attainment of a PSU education.

No question but that athletics serves as the window through which our great University is seen by many. No doubt football occupies the largest pane. It is the engine that allows all 31 varsity sports to run.

However, as all of you know, we have a myriad of headwinds and uncertainties facing us over the next year.

First, and primarily, we have the challenge of the pandemic. Last year we lost ~$38 million in football ticket revenues not to mention the loss of gameday revenues. We filled some of that gap by allowing season ticket holders to roll their 2020 ticket purchases into 2021. Consequently, we have a large issue facing us this fall. How do we replace those revenues this year?

In addition, we seemingly lost 10% of our season ticketholder base by virtue of the way we handled the refund of 2020 season ticket purchases.

Finally, what happens if we can’t play football this fall in front of a a capacity crowd in Beaver Stadium?

Second, we don’t yet know the impact of recent image and likeness legislation on colleges and universities. What if the result of this is a drag on athletics revenues?

Finally, we seem to be deviating from our policy of philanthropic commitments in writing in hand before commencing. Instead, we intend to utilize $48.3 million of borrowings from a February 4, 2020 taxable bond offering. Moreover, does this approach not create a gender equity problem for us given our direction to the Women’s Field Hockey team?

Women’s Field Hockey would like to spend $9 million on a new venue. To date, they have received $7 million in committed gifts yet they have been told they cannot break ground without the full $9 million in hand.

Additionally, the Student Food Pantry has been told that they must raise the $250,000 required for expansion that is so desperately needed. In a time when we have homeless students living in the HUB and showering in Rec Hall, what message are we sending with this decision?

With respect to my philosophical concerns, I have heard some of you as well as University leadership refer to an arms race as it pertains to football. Let me suggest that such a race is unwinnable and frankly, in my opinion, a fools errand.

Let me remind all of you that Penn State, between 2014-2018, ranked 7th in football related expenditures, averaging almost $41 million. In 2018, the spend in football was $48 million.

Alabama was #1 at almost $60.5 million, Florida State followed at almost $50 million. Ohio State was 4th at almost $43 million while Michigan was 5th at ~$41 million. Clemson followed at just under $40 million.

Interesting to note that Notre Dame (~$39.5 million), Georgia (~$39 million) and Oklahoma (~$37 million) all spent less on football than us yet all have reached the final four.

Parenthetically, Alabama is the 143rd ranked school in the most recent US News and World Report whereas Clemson ranks 73rd.

A very wise man many of us knew liked to quote a line from the poet Robert Browning.

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”

In my opinion, we would be wise to delay this project.
I simply disagree. In fact, strongly, disagree.
 
Much of the faculty seem that they would be perfectly fine with no football.
Well, it used to be that to graduate a student had to know Latin and Greek. Today, university teaches remedial English. Maybe the faculty is right.

A financial reckoning is coming, I suspect, sooner rather than later, so I’m stocking up on the popcorn.
 
Well, it used to be that to graduate a student had to know Latin and Greek. Today, university teaches remedial English. Maybe the faculty is right.

A financial reckoning is coming, I suspect, sooner rather than later, so I’m stocking up on the popcorn.

I suspect the faculty always hated college sports and the idea of going out to “.... merely agitate a bag of wind.”

I also suspect that many faculty hate sports these days due to some abstract theory related to postmodernism, or some other crackpot ideas. And let’s hope that financial reckoning comes to the university in total and not just college sports.
 
Last edited:
I suspect the faculty always hated college sports and the idea of going out to “.... merely agitate a bag of wind.”

I suspect that many faculty hate sports these days due to some abstract theory related to postmodernism, or some other crackpot ideas. And let’s hope that financial reckoning comes to the university in total and not just college sports.
I agree with you and I think that the reckoning will touch every part of PSU.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT