Facility Funding Discussion

[Madcows]

On 3/20/2024 at 11:50 AM, BigRedBuster said:

Reduced revenue from the state because Pillen didn't get his way?  If that's what is being said.....Nebraskans really need to think about who they vote for in that office.

Yes, Pillen/Govenor control the purse strings of the state and that means how much the University gets. Pillen has told the BoR multiple times during the process that if it wasn't someone he was comfortable with as President, funds would be reduced. Gold would have been the choice awhile ago, but fear was Pillen and money. And some of the more conservative on the Board wanted a candidate to fill Pillen's vision. After Trev left and hinted at the issues, sounds like there was some softening of the language to the BoR so they could make a decision, but that hasn't eased the concern of revenue being reduced.  I've also been told that part of the reason stadium upgrade is not farther along is because the state reduced some revenues for the project and put the AD/Development staff in a bind trying to raise additional funds.

 

Edited March 23 by Mavric
Split from the Dannen thread

[BigRedBuster]

23 minutes ago, Madcows said:

Yes, Pillen/Govenor control the purse strings of the state and that means how much the University gets. Pillen has told the BoR multiple times during the process that if it wasn't someone he was comfortable with as President, funds would be reduced. Gold would have been the choice awhile ago, but fear was Pillen and money. And some of the more conservative on the Board wanted a candidate to fill Pillen's vision. After Trev left and hinted at the issues, sounds like there was some softening of the language to the BoR so they could make a decision, but that hasn't eased the concern of revenue being reduced.  I've also been told that part of the reason stadium upgrade is not farther along is because the state reduced some revenues for the project and put the AD/Development staff in a bind trying to raise additional funds.

I pretty much knew all of that Pillen had made that threat.  I didn't know it was specifically about this candidate.

[Madcows]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I pretty much knew all of that Pillen had made that threat.  I didn't know it was specifically about this candidate.

 

Yeah, his objective is to fight the 'wokeness' of higher education, and wanted a President that fit his conservative vision and was the prompt for the comments.

[Mavric]

1 hour ago, Madcows said:

Yes, Pillen/Govenor control the purse strings of the state and that means how much the University gets. Pillen has told the BoR multiple times during the process that if it wasn't someone he was comfortable with as President, funds would be reduced. Gold would have been the choice awhile ago, but fear was Pillen and money. And some of the more conservative on the Board wanted a candidate to fill Pillen's vision. After Trev left and hinted at the issues, sounds like there was some softening of the language to the BoR so they could make a decision, but that hasn't eased the concern of revenue being reduced.  I've also been told that part of the reason stadium upgrade is not farther along is because the state reduced some revenues for the project and put the AD/Development staff in a bind trying to raise additional funds.

 

Considering the Athletic Department doesn't get any money from the state, this seems unlikely to be true.

[Lorewarn]

15 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Considering the Athletic Department doesn't get any money from the state, this seems unlikely to be true.

 

 

Not sure about the specific assertion from Madcows post, but I think it was a more indirect problem in that reducing funds to the university all of the sudden meant that the athletic department was competing with the school for donation dollars from the same pools of donors who A. don't have unlimited vaults of gold and B. were confused on what things they should and shouldn't be donating to.

[funhusker]

3 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Not sure about the specific assertion from Madcows post, but I think it was a more indirect problem in that reducing funds to the university all of the sudden meant that the athletic department was competing with the school for donation dollars from the same pools of donors who A. don't have unlimited vaults of gold and B. were confused on what things they should and shouldn't be donating to.

And believe it or not, some of the athletes want to graduate with a good education and campus experience.  Makes an athletic depts job much easier when those things exist.

[Madcows]

@Mavric Lorewarn hit it, reduced the amount of money for the university, which led to a reduction for this project.

[soup]

2 minutes ago, Madcows said:

@Mavric Lorewarn hit it, reduced the amount of money for the university, which led to a reduction for this project.

Which, to be honest, is probably a good thing.  That expansion project was way to much all at once.  As the Husker Online guys said in their last podcast.  Just do South Stadium alone for now and leave all of the other stuff for a later date.  Take the 450 million project and maybe cut it to 250 million.

 

[Mavric]

2 minutes ago, Madcows said:

@Mavric Lorewarn hit it, reduced the amount of money for the university, which led to a reduction for this project.

 

Eh ... you said "the state reduced some revenues for the project."  Which I'm pretty sure is not correct.

 

And it's possible they are competing for the same donor dollars.  But that doesn't seem all that likely.  And I'd be curious how anyone actually knows that if it is true.

[Madcows]

17 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Eh ... you said "the state reduced some revenues for the project."  Which I'm pretty sure is not correct.

 

And it's possible they are competing for the same donor dollars.  But that doesn't seem all that likely.  And I'd be curious how anyone actually knows that if it is true.

 

It is correct and not correct at the same time. The money received isn't earmarked for the project specifically so in those terms, I am incorrect. The university received less money, in turn, Athletics budget was impacted. I just went A to E instead of listing every step on how it reduced the funds. It's a little more complex and nuanced then I'm stating in the post. I'm dumbing it down here.

 

As for how I know, I work in accounting, work with people who do accounting work for the university. We have adult pops once on occassion at local watering holes and talk numbers and spreadsheets. Fascinating stuff, some of the functions I've been able to incorporate after these pops has been such a time saver. Sometimes while talking numbers and spreadsheets we talk about what's going on with our specific employer. 

[Stumpy1]

I think it's a pretty well known fact that the Athletic Department gives the Academic Department money to make up for short comings.  Now take away some money from the Academic Department and the Athletic Department will more than likely make up said difference which can put a hinder in projects. 

[Mavric]

35 minutes ago, Madcows said:

It is correct and not correct at the same time. The money received isn't earmarked for the project specifically so in those terms, I am incorrect. The university received less money, in turn, Athletics budget was impacted. I just went A to E instead of listing every step on how it reduced the funds. It's a little more complex and nuanced then I'm stating in the post. I'm dumbing it down here.

 

As for how I know, I work in accounting, work with people who do accounting work for the university. We have adult pops once on occassion at local watering holes and talk numbers and spreadsheets. Fascinating stuff, some of the functions I've been able to incorporate after these pops has been such a time saver. Sometimes while talking numbers and spreadsheets we talk about what's going on with our specific employer. 

 

Again, pretty sure this isn't the case.  University funds don't go to the Athletic Department.  It's the other way around.

[Madcows]

38 minutes ago, Madcows said:

 

It is correct and not correct at the same time. The money received isn't earmarked for the project specifically so in those terms, I am incorrect. The university received less money, in turn, Athletics budget was impacted. I just went A to E instead of listing every step on how it reduced the funds. It's a little more complex and nuanced then I'm stating in the post. I'm dumbing it down here.

 

As for how I know, I work in accounting, work with people who do accounting work for the university. We have adult pops once on occassion at local watering holes and talk numbers and spreadsheets. Fascinating stuff, some of the functions I've been able to incorporate after these pops has been such a time saver. Sometimes while talking numbers and spreadsheets we talk about what's going on with our specific employer. 

 

You'll just have to take my word for it that when university dollars are less than expected it impacts athletics budget.

[Madcows]

And @Mavric you'll have to keep in mind that this is a MAJOR capital project, Athletics isn't generating that money on their own. University funds go towards that. Athletics makes enough to keep the lights on and the equipment clean, with enough to throw academics a few bones. Capital expenditures like this are a different category, a different budget and the finances for that are more complex and a hell of a lot more than athletics can handle, even with fundraising.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, soup said:

Which, to be honest, is probably a good thing.  That expansion project was way to much all at once.  As the Husker Online guys said in their last podcast.  Just do South Stadium alone for now and leave all of the other stuff for a later date.  Take the 450 million project and maybe cut it to 250 million.

 

Sure, with that project. 
 

But, reducing funding for the academic side of the University because you didn’t get your guy is a d!(k move and should be remembered when voting.