Not sure what this addresses to the posters question. Would under 200 cases be the magic number, under 100?
What are schools/colleges/businesses prepared to operate with? 0 is ideal, but also unrealistic since the virus is already here and doing what viruses do.
I really appreciate JP writing this letter and do not envy the position he is in at all. No great options at all.
I do disagree with this statement he made though.... “Some people have incorrectly framed the issue as safety versus revenue generation.”.....
Pollard says that athletics takes no University money, is that a choice or is it legally-required? Would the University as a whole have some lying around to spare one-time for this?
Yes the number of people getting the virus and dying from it is dropping, but that number has nothing to do with the people getting the disease. Right now if ONE person on the team tests positive, the WHOLE team has to stop all activities for 14 days, it does not matter that the person recovers, what does matter is that team cannot play for those 14 days. We all hope that person will recover, but how many are dying from the virus is less important that number of those affected by it for playing sports.
"Not sure what this addresses to the posters question. Would under 200 cases be the magic number, under 100?
What are schools/colleges/businesses prepared to operate with? 0 is ideal, but also unrealistic since the virus is already here and doing what viruses do."
No one has stated what those numbers are that I have seen, according to the CDC guidelines the numbers of new cases in state must be DROPPING to go ahead with schools and sports. Dropping by how much and to what level is not answered, nor is over how long of a sample size. Dropping for a day, a week or month, those guidelines have not been set, nor when its considered an number of cases per state.
Agree, but ultimately he’s still balancing safety with revenue generation even if he thinks he isn’t.
Yes the number of people getting the virus and dying from it is dropping, but that number has nothing to do with the people getting the disease. Right now if ONE person on the team tests positive, the WHOLE team has to stop all activities for 14 days, it does not matter that the person recovers, what does matter is that team cannot play for those 14 days. We all hope that person will recover, but how many are dying from the virus is less important that number of those affected by it for playing sports.
"Not sure what this addresses to the posters question. Would under 200 cases be the magic number, under 100?
What are schools/colleges/businesses prepared to operate with? 0 is ideal, but also unrealistic since the virus is already here and doing what viruses do."
No one has stated what those numbers are that I have seen, according to the CDC guidelines the numbers of new cases in state must be DROPPING to go ahead with schools and sports. Dropping by how much and to what level is not answered, nor is over how long of a sample size. Dropping for a day, a week or month, those guidelines have not been set, nor when its considered an number of cases per state.
Totally agree accounting wise and federal rules. However, at one point in my career ( a long time ago), I worked for an agency that was considered a state agency subdivision in Iowa. We generated all of our operating income through earnings and had little state monetary support, we even paid the state for some administrative resources. If we had a good year, we would have to spend excess, non-committed revenue; otherwise it would go to the state coffers. So we would bust our butts to maintain fiscal discipline, but when the fiscal year ended; would have to turn over any non-committed revenue to the state. So we devised a system whereby we would always have bidders ready and waiting around April 1st, to submit bids on "dream" projects, usually reasonably small equipment purchases or maintenance services to use any excess revenue; get it approved in May, and completed and paid by July 1. There were some exceptions for long term construction, but it was complicated, and usually would have to be planned prior to knowing whether the economy would be good or bad for the year. Because we didn't have reserves, we were forced to budget conservatively on our incomes.What are you talking about? Not for profits can set aside money!!!!!! I've audited 100's of not for profits and all of then have different funds set aside for the future.
This is for Iowa State University as a whole (includes Athletics which is not shown separately).
https://www.auditor.iowa.gov/reports/file/59948/embed
1. Page 14 - you will see ISU showed $97 million in income (profit) for FY 19.
2. page 13 - ISU has $551 million in unrestricted funds meaning they can use this money for any purposes. The other funds listed there are all reserved for the purposes noted and can only be used for those purposes.
3. Page 12 - ISU has $146 million of cash and cash equivalents.
4. Page 12 - ISU has $829 million of investments.
Items 3 & 4 are profits accumulated from prior years to be used on the items noted in #2.
As you see not for profits do have profit that they set aside for future needs.
Agree, but ultimately he’s still balancing safety with revenue generation even if he thinks he isn’t.
Translation. We really really need money and will do anything we can to put people's lives and health at risk if it means we can get at least some of the sweet sweet cash.
Forget about the fact these are supposed to be students first and are supposed to be amateur's like the NCAA has been arguing for years. These kids were brought here to make money for us and god dammit they are going to make us money.
Translation. We really really need money and will do anything we can to put people's lives and health at risk if it means we can get at least some of the sweet sweet cash.
Forget about the fact these are supposed to be students first and are supposed to be amateur's like the NCAA has been arguing for years. These kids were brought here to make money for us and god dammit they are going to make us money.
Yeah, athletic programs that are losing incredible amounts of money should definitely find a way to increase their spending even more. I guess if we cancel all sport programs due to a lack of funds, you wont have to worry about colleges not paying players anymore.Now would be a great time to start looking at paying players. They're now risking both their brains by playing college football and their lungs / respiratory system.
The scientific evidence of both brain trauma in football and the impacts of COVID-19 matter a lot here.
Hopefully the athletic departments and NCAA don't use the recession and COVID as a reason to continue to not pay students.
I think you're defining "revenue generation" as though Pollard's going to pocket off this or something.
Acting like not playing is not going to have real world impacts on athletes, peoples jobs, local economy, etc. is short sighted. It's not just greed and money, it's keeping people employed and keeping the athletic department and individual programs viable.
That’s not ISU’s Athletics Department’s job. If they need unemployment, that’s someone else’s responsibility.
People are losing their jobs all over the country right now and a lot more to come sadly.
I’ve been trying to say just how bad this is going to be for a long time now, but not too many wanted to believe it. I think JP is starting to realize it.
ISU football will soon be the least of all our worries.... including JP.