I hate TMQB. I don't understand why he's allowed to blatantly lie like that. We should mass email the ombudsman AGAIN.
spoiler alert: i linked this
I usually like the TMQ on ESPN, even when he's ripping on coaches en masse, however he did something of which he is a huge criticizer. He didn't Check his FACTS!!
IF you are familiar with the article, he often critisizes other writers, annnouncers, and sports figures for not checking his facts, when he did not in his newest article on ESPN. He often notes that mistakes are printed on page 1 in the New York Times, but corrections are printed on page 37.
"Abney notes public money is being thrown in to make the Michigan
Stadium super-lavish for the well-off, even as the university's tuition
price has risen almost two-thirds in this decade. He writes, "Not only
are public funds being used to build luxury suites the average fan and
typical university alum will never be able to afford, the cost to
purchase access to said seating areas is considered a charitable
contribution and therefore billed to the federal taxpayer."
Now we know that the athletic department completely funds itself, which may be a rarity in college sports, but is true in the case of Michigan. In fact the stadium construction is being funded by private donations and the Athletic Department. So public funds are not being used to build luxury tax shelters for the very rich.
Now many people will aruge that the since many of the "donations" needed to have a suite are tax deductible that it is a tax shelter for the very rich. Possibly they are right, but it's not the sinister thing Easterbrook makes it out to be.
".... federal taxpayers will be hit for about $16 million in a year in
subsidies for the rich people sitting in the fancy new parts of the
facility. That's fairly disgusting. Perhaps a fitting punishment for
all those subsidized wealthy twits is … Rich Rodriguez. The football
gods have, after all, a sense of humor. "
He then finished with the cheap shot at Coach Rod, which for a NFL columnist, is out of line.
Like I said, I usually like his articles, and even enjoyed some of the other points in the article but this one was way out of line and unfounded. He should be complaining about schools that DON'T self sufficiently fund their athletic departments, you know like all of the rest of the country. (ok not all)
I wrote him a comment to his email, with the link to the correct information. I am not expecting a reply.
Don't Believe Everything you Read
I hate TMQB. I don't understand why he's allowed to blatantly lie like that. We should mass email the ombudsman AGAIN.
I have never heard of him. Can you link to the article?
He is perhaps the most visible example of the worst figures in sports. The writers and talking heads who eschew real statistical analysis completely for anecdotal evidence. In one of his columns he said that NFL scouts do a poor job with QB's because only 14 of the 32 teams had first round picks starting at QB. Thats almost 50 percent of the teams who have a starting QB selected in the first 14 percent of players in a class. Does he think he can do a better job?
espn employs a moron, news at 11
For some reason I have a visceral response to blatant spreading of lies. Not even opinions in this case, but out and out lies.
never was a fan of easterbrook. he figures himself to be a renaissance man and an everyman, but i find his writing (not just sports-related) to be a bit pretentious. i would guess that he has quite a high opinion of his own humility.
The man was already fired for anti-semetic comments. He uses the same jokes every week. He can go kill himself. Go blue.
I agree with Shock FX, Easterbrook is a clown. As Al Davis said of Mort; "He is a professional liar." Most of these BSPN talking heads are in the business of spreading opinions as fact. I don't even watch that network anymore unless there is a live game being played. Why would I want to hear the opinions of washed up professionals opine about a game they once failed at?
I told you couples therapy would work.
it has long been said that the athletic department is self-funding......but what does this mean?? 1) can we assume that athletic dept $$$ have paid for all athletic facilities, ticket and adminstration office bldgs., etc.....what about the land???....those facilities are on sometimes primo A2 land....is rent paid on that???.. did the athletic dept buy the land from the university??.....did the athletic dept ever pay for waterman gym, the colosseum, the ticket office, or other buildings used in the "old days"? 2) what about the things needed to run a department...utilities, office supplies, materials, etc.,...does the university charge for every pencil the athletic dept gets?....does the athletic dept buy all these things on its own? 3) what about the name "university of michigan"----should the athletic dept have to pay to use the name----if it is truly self-funding?? 4) what about personal data....alumni lists, donor lists, etc.,?.....should these things be shared....or would a self-funding organization pay for it?? 5) what about borrowing $$$ or issuing bonds??....which organization is actually liable for the debt...the athletic dept, or the university??....would the interest rate be more or less favorable if the university itself was not liable for the loan?? 6) what about parking $$$....which part of the university actually owns the land used for football parking...and which part gets the $$$? i suggest that the phrase "self-funding" needs a lot more explanation before we can just accept it
I think people need to get over how much is spent on College Football. Michigan is certainly not on an island here, with most major programs dumping millions into their football facilities. In fact, as we all know, Michigan is behind the 8-ball in their renovations.
Let's look on the bright side of this, mmmkay? FACT: the football program brings in millions to help fund the other athletic programs. Because of the football team X girl can get a scholarship for field hockey, because of football X dude can get a scholarship to play golf.
FACT: Black Bears, beets, Battlestar Galactica.
What's with the cheap shot on Rodriguez? WTF is this guys problem?
Here's why the "they spend so much on blah blah" pisses me off, re: football.
You have Gregg Easterbrook whining about how much money Michigan spends on football. Ok, he thinks it is somehow morally wrong.
Easterbrook is paid. By ESPN. To write about football. In money.
But it's wrong for schools to spend money on their football program? It's ok for him to make a personal living writing about it, but it's wrong for the people producing the product to make money off it or try to maximize their profits.
And he can rebuttal with "but I write about the NFL!". Two problems: 1. College football has a close relationship with the NFL - neither would exist in the current form without the other. 2. He's writing about college football. Right now. In this column.
So to me, it reeks of self-aggrandizing hypocrisy to make a living profiting off people's interest in a game, and then denounce the powers that be for making money from the game.
To be fair to Easterbrook we don't know how he's paid. It's been my guess for a while that every other Friday ESPN hires the hooker Antonio Henton failed to pick up, dresses her in a cheerleader costume, and "pays" Easterbrook by spanking him. I could be wrong though.
Does the University pay the athletic dept for the weekly national television exposure?
Do local ann arbor businesses pay the athletic dept a commission on the millions of $$$ in sales each year from people coming to ann arbor for games?
those are good questions-----maybe the athletic dept makes a "profit" for the university in economic terms------all i'm saying is we cannot know whether it is truly "self-funding" without more information
The Athletic Department is a self-funding part of the university, not an independent corporation or entity. The regents have final say over all aspects of the AD and there have always been shared resources and trademarks. The university almost certainly owns the land on which the stadium's built and I doubt they charge the AD rent...because the university also owns and uses the stadium.
The AD is considered self-funding because coaches' salaries, athletic equipment, scholarships (paid to the university's general fund), and, most salient to this thread, facility improvements are funded by the AD with money made from athletics. Many other ADs rely on money that comes from tuition or governments to subsidize them. Who knows (or more importantly cares) who buys the pencils.
One last thing - next time, please use normal grammar and spacing instead of gratuitous punctuation. Your post wasn't very readable.
I will sincerely try to avoid asinine argument and conform to the "elements of style" in the future. I bow to your superior knowledge, but might I be permitted to respectfully suggest that it is not clear whether overall the athletic department provides an economic "benefit" to the university or an economic "cost". I also respectfully submit that the more overlap there is between athletic department and university then the more difficult this calculation becomes. If the two cannot be separated, and if in fact they should not be separated, then the phrase "self-funding" becomes a little less meaningful.
The AD is a revenue-generating department within University. Prior to every fiscal year, they need to come up with a budget. This budget contains typical operating expenses (including labor, non-labor, other overhead) and other special projects - including facilities renovations. It also would include things like expected revenue generation for the coming fiscal year. Given that the AD is said to be "self-funding" we can assume that the expected revenues will cover the expected expenses. Some of that revenue may be in the form of donations, which Easterbrook is so loathe to accept.
In terms of things like pencils, nobody seriously counts the number of pencils (or paper, staples, etc) the AD (or any dept, for that matter) uses and charges for them. There is probably an allocation for things that would fall into an SG&A type bucket (eg, rent, utilities, pencils, etc).
In terms of things like access to personal data, the University likely has a single data warehouse and it is really just a matter of permitting the appropriate access to the appropriate levels to the appropriate people. It's not a complicated concept.
Where you are going wrong is that your questions all seem to be built on the assumption that the AD is a separate entity from the University. This is not the case. There are various "revenue" streams. The AD does not tap into any but its own.
And there's your problem. Most college football fans wouldn't look at this from the point of view of an economist or try to calculate the AD's "overall" financial effect on the university. "Self-funding" is plenty meaningful to most people, and I don't think whether or not alumni lists are shared or trademarks are used really has anything to do with it (or the diary author's post, for that matter). The fact that the construction is being funded by a combination of money from the AD's coffers, private donations, and bonds that will be repaid by the AD is all that matters.
If you want to argue about whether the AD is a benefit or a cost, I'm perfectly willing to take that up. Somewhere else, though - start your own diary if you'd like.
It was for the children.
must like RR given Saturday's historic comeback.
never has any idea what he's talking about.
he might be the least informed writer espn has, which is quite an accomplishment. he's a thesaurus and little more
While TMQ occasionally mentions the source of a fact he's pulled out for his case, and will often drop quotes, he has never, to my knowledge, ever linked to anything or provided any other bibliographical record of his sources. Bloggers, the scourge of MSM, would be ripped to shreds for such irresponsibility. I doubt the average ESPN reader would ever go on an internet hunt for more information on any subject TMQ blathers on about in his holier-than-thou douchebaggery way.
last year when that idiot was running those "good vs. evil" columns about colts vs. patriots? obviously the manning vs. brady comparisons pissed me off, but the dungy vs. belicheck analogy was just sad considering some of dungy's personal views (homosexuals, etc.) as well as easterbrook's own history with anti-semitism. just a completely worthless character all around.
He's full of s*** for starters, but if taxes WERE paying for the renovations, man, of all the stadiums to bitch about. For its size, the accomodations are ridiculously out of date. Up until the new renovations, a trip to the big house includes: 4 hours on scoliosis inducing aluminum bleachers, a concession stand about as nice and inviting as a drug deal under an overpass, and pissing in a trough. Yeah, wow. WAAAAY too much has been spent on this place already.
Troughs are nicer than what some of those bathrooms have. Some of them you basically just piss on a wall with a little water running down it and it all goes into a gutter sunk into the floor.
Unless they've replaced the piss wall with troughs, which would be a stadium upgrade.
Whoa. The trough concept is frickin brilliant. Do you know how many people they can push through there at once? Millions. I regularly attend USC games at the colliseum (proximity, fellas) and they only have urinals. Sure, each bathroom has like 15 urinals, but when you are used to the trough method of the big house, you get really pissed (ha!) when you have to wait 10 minutes just to get into the bathroom, where you then wait longer in line at a urinal. I'm not really sure what the negatives are to a trough (someone can see your wanger?) but ti'd better than missing gametime waiting in line.
He also fails to note that if I donate $70,000 to a Church, I'd get the same tax break, and my money would still only influence people I wanted it to. You'd think he'd at least find a church/state argument to include in his drivel.
The guy is a joke. He rarely backs up his statements with irrefutable fact. He's just a biased douchebag (see his crusade against RichRod & Belicheck). How the guy has a job, I don't know.