University of Toledo president orders revamp of athletics

h2oville rocket · Post by **h2oville rocket** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:54 pm

transfer2BGSU wrote:
h2oville rocket wrote:Jop, Stutz and Scooter provided Davis weapon so he could knock off a witness in the point shaving case.
I KNEW IT!!!!

Oh, hell, everybody knew it. Where have you been?

h2oville rocket · Post by **h2oville rocket** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:58 pm

Flipper wrote:A few things kind of jumped out at me about this. The athletes wil be interviewed by outside counsel and a faculty athletics rep.....is that a CYA move or part of a larger look into what's been going on? Why interview EVERYONE by someone fromoutside the University. Why not just have the coaches do the interviewing...because there's concerns with how closely they've been looking at the issues outlined?

Expensing has been put under the accounting office. How tight are those purse strings going to be now? What kind of shenanigans were going on with the department handling expenses? I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Discipline will now be streamlined throughout the department. Solich had this happen to him at OU this year. Do Amstutz and Joplin lose discretion on disciplining their players?

Joplin and Toledo Tom now answer directly to the AD who answers directly to the University President....frankly, the previous chain of command that had them going through an associate AD with marketing responsiblities seems odd. It would seem that Dr Jacobs wants a clearer chain of command that puts the two coaches a tad closer to him.

Dr Jacobs has complete confidence in the AD and would advocate an extension. The coaches who have had their expense reporting changed, the coaches who now report directly to the AD, the coaches who no longer have as much, if any discretion on how they dicipline their players, the coaches who's expenses are being "investigated" by the University, the coaches who's players are being vetted by outside counsel to ensure their eligibility to play...those coaches didn't get a vote of confidence today...they got the collar tightened a bit, but they didn't get a vote of confidence.

Finally...how did the Blade find all this out? It's not like UT had a press conference to announce all this...the Blade discovered it? How did the Blade discover the NCAA inquiry into the apparent irregularities on the betting before the Kent State game? Is there a mole within the UT administration that wants to grease the skids for a couple of coaches at UT?

I doubt there is anything that nefarious. My guess is that the blade has reporters who poke around in stuff that is public record and report it. It seems like most anything would be public record, even if not publicized. As for an outside attorney, I believe UT was asked by the feebs not to do an internal investigation-I could be wrong and I'm too lazy to check but I think Jacobs wants to get things under control (as I'm sure they have always been because after all , its UT) without stepping on the Fed's toes. Or I'm all wet. One of those.

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:37 pm

It is all public record. Nearly anything is under Ohio law. Chances are, The Blade heard rumors and asked for the records.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:50 pm

h2oville rocket wrote:Nevertheless, I think this is a story that will fade quickly.

It might, but what The Blade reported today will be in other papers tomorrow. The Associated Press moved a full story on it tonight:

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/clev ... =cleveland

Falcon30 · Post by **Falcon30** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:39 pm

orangeandbrown wrote:It is all public record. Nearly anything is under Ohio law. Chances are, The Blade heard rumors and asked for the records.

The way things are anymore, especially in Ohio, they might not get the records.

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:41 pm

You have to read this in terms of "what is the Blade tring to get at."

I think the Blade likes or loves UT's new prexy. I think it is part of a ongoing drive to "purge" the athletics department of whatever the papers board of editors has decided to be the new evil at UT.

I think the Blade looks at UT’s athletics as a last bastion of “Old UT thinking” which pretty much means they’ll want to hammer it like they used to attack the various presidents and Boards of Trustees. This seems like the opening moves in a long-term agenda.

The Blade wants to look like it helped “create change” by jumping all over what is going on up there, what they are doing seems logical. They trumpet issues and such. They’ll use Jacob’s current moves as proof of their thinking, praising him as they go. The current articles, and future editorials are intended to “get ahead” of the issue, calling for what is obviously going to happen, heaping praise as moves any of us can predict will take place. I think the Blade didn’t expect Jacobs to take action of this kind so soon.

I think Jacobs is setting up all the heads on blocks, in order of authority. Or as the Headless Horseman might say, he is “setting up the buffet.”

I think nobody, on any level, is safe at UT. I think Jacobs might know the value of an athletics program, but I’d bet he is incensed at having his reputation tarnished by proxy. I think he is wholly dedicated to the idea of UT as an academic institution first and foremost. The extent to which he is willing to change athletics may not know any bounds.

Extending an old theme with the Blade, how many of UT’s pre-merger trustees, especially those on bad terms with the paper remain. I wonder how many of those are especially tight with athletics.

The real bets should be at what point they start to beat UT over the head with how things are done at BGSU. That would fit the Blade's SOP from the past.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:22 am

This story gets curiouser and curiouser.

Today's Blade documents how the Vanderbilt and Toledo basketball teams signed a contract where a $6,000 guarantee was to be paid by Vandy to ... Team Sports Inc.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /706160395

It reads to me as if Joplin and/or O'Brien was trying to keep the guarantee money off the books for some reason.

Just weird.

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:45 pm

Well, the reason appears to be that Joplin wanted more equipment, but had overspent his budget. If he takes the Vanderbilt $$ and puts them in this budget, it just offsets his deficit and he doesn't get any equipment. Meanwhile, if he sends the money to the company, he gets new stuff he wants.

I can't believe Vanderbilt went along with it.

It could be construed as a misappropriation of funds.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:32 pm

orangeandbrown wrote:It could be construed as a misappropriation of funds.

It's interesting to think about. Any lawyers here?

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:34 pm

Schadenfreude wrote:It's interesting to think about. Any lawyers here?

No. But I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:50 pm

Another interesting aspect of the story centers on the reimbursed travel expenses for boosters, coaches' wives and girlfriends. The University seems to have paid the travel expenses, but the UT Foundation was reimbursed. The foundation is a seperate, non profit fund raising orginization that makes all financial records public, but the University does not appear to have any authority over how the foundation spends its funds.

So far as the llatest disclosure re the Vanderbilt funds...it looks like it might death by a 1000 cuts for Stan. What will tommorow's Balde bring?

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:04 pm

Flipper wrote:...it looks like it might death by a 1000 cuts for Stan. What will tommorow's Balde bring?

If Stan's lucky, it will just bring coupons and that silly Dagwood making a sandwich that's way too big for 1am in full color.

But I'd bet a Sunday paper will also include a shiny red bow on the week's worth of investigations into UT's 3-card monte.

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:16 am

I believe the person who took the story to The Blade has revealed herself.

http://tinyurl.com/32ukrw

Also, The Blade LOVES Dr. Jacobs. That' why they ran the story where he fixed the problem before they ran the story ABOUT the problem.

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:26 am

Flipper wrote:The University seems to have paid the travel expenses, but the UT Foundation was reimbursed. The foundation is a seperate, non profit fund raising orginization that makes all financial records public, but the University does not appear to have any authority over how the foundation spends its funds.

The way I read the first story, it appears the coaches reimbursed the university for their credit card expenses BUT they appealed it. The appeals process took approximately one year (bureaucracy at its finest). When they lost the appeal, the UT Foundation stepped forward and reimbursed the coaches.

I see nothing wrong with that at all.

I believe the UT Foundation is a FOR profit group (which I believe is the same thing for the BGSU Foundation). They are separate entities from the universities but obviously exist for the universities. FF1 might be better able to clarify this one for us.

However, the UT Foundation is not the place a coach goes for an unlimited supply of money when they have overspent their budget (as is the case for Stan Joplin). In the case of covering the expenses of the football coaches to go overseas for the football camp, they obviously viewed that as something that was positive for the university and agreed to cover the costs. They could equally have decided not to cover the costs if it had been reported that the coaches were going to some Buddha shrine in Tibet where they were going to cleanse their souls and spiritual assistance for the upcoming season.

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:35 am

Foundations are separate from the University, but they are not for-profit. They are very much non-profit. This is why donations are tax deductible.

The distinction I think you are looking for here is private vs. public. Since all the money at a foundation is private money, there are fewer controls on how it is spent. They are often used as a slush fund for expenses that would not be appropriate for the public funds (tax dollars and fees) that a university has. This could include travel to Germany, but also probably includes many other things. It is an old dodge, but scrutiny is increasing.

As for Schad's post, I don't think we need a lawyer. The Vanderbilt $$ was the University's money. The University's Trustees, ultimately, are the ones charged with deciding how it is spent, not a basketball coach. There is no way money can be legally directed elsewhere outside of the budget process. Of course, it never actually happened--it was only in the contract.