Tonights musings are coming live from sidetracks. Actually the WIFI there is not good so I am at home but a burger sounds good from there here are the musings
Saturday thought about going to the game, then golfing then the game and then i just did neither because of the wind. Missed a good long one.
The transfer portal is a double edge sword. It can help programs like emu improve quickly but also can strip us of parts of great players having a breakout year. I muse Noah Farrakhan might be one of course Emoni might need to come home if memphis keeps losing hehee probably to the Pistons though.
Football big game in the lending tree super loan mobile alabama bowl which will be like a smaller mardi gras. South Alabama has a nice stadium and i hope we can get the win. Good odds on the money line for the eagles if you are in to that sort of speculative investing.

Excited to do my christmas shopping in ypsi next week.

(12-13-2021 06:34 PM)fanfrompowellspub Wrote:  Tonights musings are coming live from sidetracks. Actually the WIFI there is not good so I am at home but a burger sounds good from there here are the musings
Saturday thought about going to the game, then golfing then the game and then i just did neither because of the wind. Missed a good long one.
The transfer portal is a double edge sword. It can help programs like emu improve quickly but also can strip us of parts of great players having a breakout year. I muse Noah Farrakhan might be one of course Emoni might need to come home if memphis keeps losing hehee probably to the Pistons though.
Football big game in the lending tree super loan mobile alabama bowl which will be like a smaller mardi gras. South Alabama has a nice stadium and i hope we can get the win. Good odds on the money line for the eagles if you are in to that sort of speculative investing.

Excited to do my christmas shopping in ypsi next week.

Noah has already used his "free" transfer. He is fabulous, what a great find by Heath! That said your comments about the transfer portal are indeed on-point.

As far as Emoni, after watching him play, I think he would have been better served to pay more attention to his game than the multiple tweets about where his next destination might be. He is a good player but hardly the next Ervin Johnson from Michigan.

I taught Emoni when he was at Lincoln. I don't remember him being a good or bad student. It's the good ones and the bad ones that leave the lasting expression.

https://emueagles.com/news/2021/12/16/wo...anges.aspx

The "O" variant, as I call it is spreading like wild fire. I assume this is still Delta (though).

And more of the same in MBB (not EMU, though).

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket...y-wildcats

(12-13-2021 06:34 PM)fanfrompowellspub Wrote:  Tonights musings are coming live from sidetracks. Actually the WIFI there is not good so I am at home but a burger sounds good from there here are the musings
Saturday thought about going to the game, then golfing then the game and then i just did neither because of the wind. Missed a good long one.
The transfer portal is a double edge sword. It can help programs like emu improve quickly but also can strip us of parts of great players having a breakout year. I muse Noah Farrakhan might be one of course Emoni might need to come home if memphis keeps losing hehee probably to the Pistons though.
Football big game in the lending tree super loan mobile alabama bowl which will be like a smaller mardi gras. South Alabama has a nice stadium and i hope we can get the win. Good odds on the money line for the eagles if you are in to that sort of speculative investing.

Excited to do my christmas shopping in ypsi next week.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/busine...500796001/

101 W. MICHIGAN Ave.

Wash. Post has an article about a MoC wanting to investigate that these huge coaches contracts are paid for with charitable gifts to the school.

(12-20-2021 07:49 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Wash. Post has an article about a MoC wanting to investigate that these huge coaches contracts are paid for with charitable gifts to the school.

I haven't read the article, but this will be interesting to follow. I've spent 36 years as a fundraiser for various non-profits, 22 of which were at universities (including a three-year stint at EMU). There is a fine line in fundraising when it comes to contributions to pay a salary. You regularly hear of endowed chairs, endowed professorships, and other such positions funded through philanthropy, and there is no issue with that. The IRS says that to be a charitable gift, a named specific individual cannot receive direct benefit from a gift. So in the case of a chair or professorship, the donor contributes to supporting the position but has no say who fills that position...the school makes that decision/choice.

Extending that to a coaching position, if a donor makes a gift to support the salary of whichever coach the school chooses to hire, regardless the size of the contribution, that should fly in the eyes of the IRS. But if a donor makes a contribution contingent on the school retaining Nick Saban, or hiring Les Miles, that would not be a charitable contribution as it would benefit a named specific individual. Now if the "donor" had no intent to take a charitable deduction for that "contribution", something like that might still work with board approval, but I would think it would create all kinds of ethical issues in so far as the "donor" is effectively influencing hiring policies of the university through his/her "gift". That would be a very touchy situation that may cross some legal boundaries.

(12-20-2021 09:00 AM)cidbearit Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 07:49 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Wash. Post has an article about a MoC wanting to investigate that these huge coaches contracts are paid for with charitable gifts to the school.

I haven't read the article, but this will be interesting to follow. I've spent 36 years as a fundraiser for various non-profits, 22 of which were at universities (including a three-year stint at EMU). There is a fine line in fundraising when it comes to contributions to pay a salary. You regularly hear of endowed chairs, endowed professorships, and other such positions funded through philanthropy, and there is no issue with that. The IRS says that to be a charitable gift, a named specific individual cannot receive direct benefit from a gift. So in the case of a chair or professorship, the donor contributes to supporting the position but has no say who fills that position...the school makes that decision/choice.

Extending that to a coaching position, if a donor makes a gift to support the salary of whichever coach the school chooses to hire, regardless the size of the contribution, that should fly in the eyes of the IRS. But if a donor makes a contribution contingent on the school retaining Nick Saban, or hiring Les Miles, that would not be a charitable contribution as it would benefit a named specific individual. Now if the "donor" had no intent to take a charitable deduction for that "contribution", something like that might still work with board approval, but I would think it would create all kinds of ethical issues in so far as the "donor" is effectively influencing hiring policies of the university through his/her "gift". That would be a very touchy situation that may cross some legal boundaries.

Here is the WaPo article. Don't know if you can access it or not...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...-salaries/

Here are the two lead paragraphs:

"Inspired by the latest round of massive contracts given to college football coaches, a congressman is looking into potential “abuses of the tax code by schools enjoying tax-exempt status.”

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight, announced the inquiry, which opens with letters to the presidents of LSU and Southern California, on Friday. His office intends to expand the probe and could send similar letters to other schools."

(12-20-2021 09:08 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 09:00 AM)cidbearit Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 07:49 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Wash. Post has an article about a MoC wanting to investigate that these huge coaches contracts are paid for with charitable gifts to the school.

I haven't read the article, but this will be interesting to follow. I've spent 36 years as a fundraiser for various non-profits, 22 of which were at universities (including a three-year stint at EMU). There is a fine line in fundraising when it comes to contributions to pay a salary. You regularly hear of endowed chairs, endowed professorships, and other such positions funded through philanthropy, and there is no issue with that. The IRS says that to be a charitable gift, a named specific individual cannot receive direct benefit from a gift. So in the case of a chair or professorship, the donor contributes to supporting the position but has no say who fills that position...the school makes that decision/choice.

Extending that to a coaching position, if a donor makes a gift to support the salary of whichever coach the school chooses to hire, regardless the size of the contribution, that should fly in the eyes of the IRS. But if a donor makes a contribution contingent on the school retaining Nick Saban, or hiring Les Miles, that would not be a charitable contribution as it would benefit a named specific individual. Now if the "donor" had no intent to take a charitable deduction for that "contribution", something like that might still work with board approval, but I would think it would create all kinds of ethical issues in so far as the "donor" is effectively influencing hiring policies of the university through his/her "gift". That would be a very touchy situation that may cross some legal boundaries.

Here is the WaPo article. Don't know if you can access it or not...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...-salaries/

Here are the two lead paragraphs:

"Inspired by the latest round of massive contracts given to college football coaches, a congressman is looking into potential “abuses of the tax code by schools enjoying tax-exempt status.”

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight, announced the inquiry, which opens with letters to the presidents of LSU and Southern California, on Friday. His office intends to expand the probe and could send similar letters to other schools."

Some of the arguments made in that article could have some legs. Particularly, in my mind, the issue about charitable mission and purpose. Colleges and Universities for the most part are charitable organizations based on their educational mission. When the staffing salaries and budgets of athletics (as a whole) become so large, at what point can it be said that a school is suffering from "mission creep" whereby their education mission is being supplanted by athletics? And I don't think you can pick on just one program like football or basketball...you'd have to consider athletics as a whole in this picture. If you are going to argue football is not educational, then track and softball would be subject to the same argument.

(12-20-2021 09:32 AM)cidbearit Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 09:08 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 09:00 AM)cidbearit Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 07:49 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Wash. Post has an article about a MoC wanting to investigate that these huge coaches contracts are paid for with charitable gifts to the school.

I haven't read the article, but this will be interesting to follow. I've spent 36 years as a fundraiser for various non-profits, 22 of which were at universities (including a three-year stint at EMU). There is a fine line in fundraising when it comes to contributions to pay a salary. You regularly hear of endowed chairs, endowed professorships, and other such positions funded through philanthropy, and there is no issue with that. The IRS says that to be a charitable gift, a named specific individual cannot receive direct benefit from a gift. So in the case of a chair or professorship, the donor contributes to supporting the position but has no say who fills that position...the school makes that decision/choice.

Extending that to a coaching position, if a donor makes a gift to support the salary of whichever coach the school chooses to hire, regardless the size of the contribution, that should fly in the eyes of the IRS. But if a donor makes a contribution contingent on the school retaining Nick Saban, or hiring Les Miles, that would not be a charitable contribution as it would benefit a named specific individual. Now if the "donor" had no intent to take a charitable deduction for that "contribution", something like that might still work with board approval, but I would think it would create all kinds of ethical issues in so far as the "donor" is effectively influencing hiring policies of the university through his/her "gift". That would be a very touchy situation that may cross some legal boundaries.

Here is the WaPo article. Don't know if you can access it or not...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...-salaries/

Here are the two lead paragraphs:

"Inspired by the latest round of massive contracts given to college football coaches, a congressman is looking into potential “abuses of the tax code by schools enjoying tax-exempt status.”

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight, announced the inquiry, which opens with letters to the presidents of LSU and Southern California, on Friday. His office intends to expand the probe and could send similar letters to other schools."

Some of the arguments made in that article could have some legs. Particularly, in my mind, the issue about charitable mission and purpose. Colleges and Universities for the most part are charitable organizations based on their educational mission. When the staffing salaries and budgets of athletics (as a whole) become so large, at what point can it be said that a school is suffering from "mission creep" whereby their education mission is being supplanted by athletics? And I don't think you can pick on just one program like football or basketball...you'd have to consider athletics as a whole in this picture. If you are going to argue football is not educational, then track and softball would be subject to the same argument.

Just a story. My by comparison, small donor contributions to EMU are matched by the corporation I retired from. Bridgestone has rigorous standards as to where that money goes. When I expressly donated to the SAPC, the match was denied. Today my checks are designated for athletic scholarships and matched, I suspect due to tax implications.

(12-20-2021 07:07 PM)Jerry Weaver Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 09:32 AM)cidbearit Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 09:08 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 09:00 AM)cidbearit Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 07:49 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Wash. Post has an article about a MoC wanting to investigate that these huge coaches contracts are paid for with charitable gifts to the school.

I haven't read the article, but this will be interesting to follow. I've spent 36 years as a fundraiser for various non-profits, 22 of which were at universities (including a three-year stint at EMU). There is a fine line in fundraising when it comes to contributions to pay a salary. You regularly hear of endowed chairs, endowed professorships, and other such positions funded through philanthropy, and there is no issue with that. The IRS says that to be a charitable gift, a named specific individual cannot receive direct benefit from a gift. So in the case of a chair or professorship, the donor contributes to supporting the position but has no say who fills that position...the school makes that decision/choice.

Extending that to a coaching position, if a donor makes a gift to support the salary of whichever coach the school chooses to hire, regardless the size of the contribution, that should fly in the eyes of the IRS. But if a donor makes a contribution contingent on the school retaining Nick Saban, or hiring Les Miles, that would not be a charitable contribution as it would benefit a named specific individual. Now if the "donor" had no intent to take a charitable deduction for that "contribution", something like that might still work with board approval, but I would think it would create all kinds of ethical issues in so far as the "donor" is effectively influencing hiring policies of the university through his/her "gift". That would be a very touchy situation that may cross some legal boundaries.

Here is the WaPo article. Don't know if you can access it or not...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...-salaries/

Here are the two lead paragraphs:

"Inspired by the latest round of massive contracts given to college football coaches, a congressman is looking into potential “abuses of the tax code by schools enjoying tax-exempt status.”

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight, announced the inquiry, which opens with letters to the presidents of LSU and Southern California, on Friday. His office intends to expand the probe and could send similar letters to other schools."

Some of the arguments made in that article could have some legs. Particularly, in my mind, the issue about charitable mission and purpose. Colleges and Universities for the most part are charitable organizations based on their educational mission. When the staffing salaries and budgets of athletics (as a whole) become so large, at what point can it be said that a school is suffering from "mission creep" whereby their education mission is being supplanted by athletics? And I don't think you can pick on just one program like football or basketball...you'd have to consider athletics as a whole in this picture. If you are going to argue football is not educational, then track and softball would be subject to the same argument.

Just a story. My by comparison, small donor contributions to EMU are matched by the corporation I retired from. Bridgestone has rigorous standards as to where that money goes. When I expressly donated to the SAPC, the match was denied. Today my checks are designated for athletic scholarships and matched, I suspect due to tax implications.

Many companies with matching gift programs have restrictions that go well beyond what the IRS requires of charitable gifts. Most won't support capital campaigns (buildings) or endowments. They also won't match contributions toward a donor's pledge. Some go as far as saying they will match contributions regardless of where the donor designates, but the matching funds can only go to an unrestricted general fund. The bottom line, though, is that it is a wonderful thing that some companies match gifts. It does make a difference to the organizations that receive the matches.

(12-20-2021 07:35 PM)cidbearit Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 07:07 PM)Jerry Weaver Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 09:32 AM)cidbearit Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 09:08 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 09:00 AM)cidbearit Wrote:  I haven't read the article, but this will be interesting to follow. I've spent 36 years as a fundraiser for various non-profits, 22 of which were at universities (including a three-year stint at EMU). There is a fine line in fundraising when it comes to contributions to pay a salary. You regularly hear of endowed chairs, endowed professorships, and other such positions funded through philanthropy, and there is no issue with that. The IRS says that to be a charitable gift, a named specific individual cannot receive direct benefit from a gift. So in the case of a chair or professorship, the donor contributes to supporting the position but has no say who fills that position...the school makes that decision/choice.

Extending that to a coaching position, if a donor makes a gift to support the salary of whichever coach the school chooses to hire, regardless the size of the contribution, that should fly in the eyes of the IRS. But if a donor makes a contribution contingent on the school retaining Nick Saban, or hiring Les Miles, that would not be a charitable contribution as it would benefit a named specific individual. Now if the "donor" had no intent to take a charitable deduction for that "contribution", something like that might still work with board approval, but I would think it would create all kinds of ethical issues in so far as the "donor" is effectively influencing hiring policies of the university through his/her "gift". That would be a very touchy situation that may cross some legal boundaries.

Here is the WaPo article. Don't know if you can access it or not...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...-salaries/

Here are the two lead paragraphs:

"Inspired by the latest round of massive contracts given to college football coaches, a congressman is looking into potential “abuses of the tax code by schools enjoying tax-exempt status.”

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight, announced the inquiry, which opens with letters to the presidents of LSU and Southern California, on Friday. His office intends to expand the probe and could send similar letters to other schools."

Some of the arguments made in that article could have some legs. Particularly, in my mind, the issue about charitable mission and purpose. Colleges and Universities for the most part are charitable organizations based on their educational mission. When the staffing salaries and budgets of athletics (as a whole) become so large, at what point can it be said that a school is suffering from "mission creep" whereby their education mission is being supplanted by athletics? And I don't think you can pick on just one program like football or basketball...you'd have to consider athletics as a whole in this picture. If you are going to argue football is not educational, then track and softball would be subject to the same argument.

Just a story. My by comparison, small donor contributions to EMU are matched by the corporation I retired from. Bridgestone has rigorous standards as to where that money goes. When I expressly donated to the SAPC, the match was denied. Today my checks are designated for athletic scholarships and matched, I suspect due to tax implications.

Many companies with matching gift programs have restrictions that go well beyond what the IRS requires of charitable gifts. Most won't support capital campaigns (buildings) or endowments. They also won't match contributions toward a donor's pledge. Some go as far as saying they will match contributions regardless of where the donor designates, but the matching funds can only go to an unrestricted general fund. The bottom line, though, is that it is a wonderful thing that some companies match gifts. It does make a difference to the organizations that receive the matches.

Most wouldn't pay for infrastructure, parking, driveways, water and sewer, even power.