1. Thanks for the biographical info on the newspaper, which I never mentioned.
2. I never said the author was a Ped State grad. I said he was the Ped State writer. Which, again, is accurate.
3. Thanks for the condescending lesson on libel vs. slander. It's as if I never got that A in Dignitary Torts. I should go yell at Katie Sowle. At any rate, I usually use the word "slander" with non-attorneys because it is a more familiar and well-known term. Plus, this: "Libel and slander are now treated alike and the same rules apply to a defamatory statement regardless of whether the statement is written or oral." But, hey, thanks for acting as if there was any sort of meaningful difference upon which you should lecture me. As for defamation, whether it is written or oral, you clearly don't know the elements of the tort, and I highly doubt that some ****-ant writer from some ****e-bag newspaper (hey, first published in 1854!!!) has caused Miami any damages.
4. Obvious. Sure. You should contact the school's legal department and get them to sue RSM McGladrey. But, hey, this intrepid reporter has obviously discovered MULTIPLE instances of "book-cooking", so it MUUUUST be true. Again, you fail to address why you feel that "revenue" was the "cooked" number, you were too busy getting huffy and lecturing me on "slander vs. libel".
5. I said nothing about a "requirement" to publicize the numbers, but the numbers have, indeed, been publicized. If you feel that UM has publicized fake numbers, again, you should contact the university's legal counsel.
Oh, but I see you are whining NOT about financial statements, but about an "EADA survey". Even more amusing, is the fact that you cut-and-pasted the following:
"For purposes of this survey, reported revenues must always equal or exceed reported expenses, otherwise the survey cannot be finalized, or “locked out” in the system."
So, to sum up, it is possible for revenue and expense to be EQUAL, even though you claimed that this was statistically impossible. Oh, but what about a situation where Expenses EXCEED Revenue? Thus, the "survey cannot be finalized" or "locked out in the system". Now, I'm not a math expert (I am), but is it POSSSSSIBLE that Miami reduced the Expenses to EQUAL Revenue, so that the report could be submitted?
Ohhhh...guess you didn't think of THAT one. But, sure, the "books are cooked".
Thanks for handing me the cut-paste evidence to hoist you by your own petard.
1. I posted the biographical info on the newspaper to show that the author was publishing for a newspaper's online site. If the newspaper allowed the author to knowingly post false information, it could be sued. They have a very significant financial interest to prevent any of their writers from committing libel. Here's what you said:
"'Cooked its books" is both false and downright slanderous. By the Ped State writer, of course."
False and slanderous? You are clearly accusing the author of defaming the university.
2. I assumed you were insinuating the Ped State writer was a PSU grad and trying to defame the university... because he's got something against Miami, FSU, and Rutgers, I guess? It is such a weird comment that it makes no sense. Ok so he's the beatwriter for Penn State. That gives him motivation to defame Miami, Rutgers, and FSU and put his employer's finances and reputation at stake? Here's what the author said in terms of cooking the books, which he led off with Rutgers.
"RU is one of 3 football programs in the data that appears to have cooked its books, presumably in order to not register a deficit."
It's not defamation (knowingly or unknowingly) because the three schools almost certainly cooked the books to not register a deficit since the rules for EADA say they can't have a net negative. If the true revenue number is $40 million and expenses are $60 million, the school HAS to report revenue as at least $60 million because revenue has to be at least as much as expenses in EADA report.
3. Oh you used "slander" instead of "libel" for the benefit of pea-brain site members who can't understand those fancy legal words. Sure you did.
4. You keep making the same mistake over and over again assuming the EADA report was prepared by an accounting firm (and extra points for name dropping the accounting firm, gives you real cred when you pretend to know what you are talking about). It's not an official accounting document. One more time- EADA reports are not an official accounting document. It's just a report from the Athletics Dept business office. You can go look up the report on the EADA website and see who prepared it.
I tell you what, let's make a bet- if you find anything that shows any accounting firm prepared UM's EADA report, I"ll take a 1 yr account ban. I won't ask you to put your account on the line.
5. Nice strawman argument. The real profit/loss statements for the university have not been published. Public universities have to provide a detailed accounting of all revenues and expenses because the are government institutions. Private universities do not have to publicly report their finances and most don't.
This should be layup if you say the real expense numbers have been published: what did UM officially disclose as Mark Richt's new salary after his 2018 contract extension? Go ahead and try to find it. I'll wait.
"So, to sum up, it is possible for revenue and expense to be EQUAL, even though you claimed that this was statistically impossible."
In EADA statements? Sure, you'll see that all the time in EADA reports. And those are almost certainly not the real financial figures being reported to the IRS. Any university that has revenue less than expenses is going to report revenue and expenses as equal (totaling zero) in its EADA report because that is an EADA requirement. EADA reports are basically useless for getting real data on private schools. For public schools they might be more accurate because it is easy to cross reference with the financial statements that are published by state law and fabrications would be obvious.
If you were to somehow get a look at the financial information provided to the IRS, it is a near statistically impossibility that Miami's net for the year would equal exactly zero. Just use some simple logic if you are capable of it: if you added up all the true revenue from parking lot fees, ticket sales, acc distribution, etc and then subtracted all the true expenses for new buildings, scholarships, coaching salaries, office supply expenses etc., what do you think are the chances that all those revenue amounts and expenses would total exactly zero?
Oh, but what about a situation where Expenses EXCEED Revenue? Thus, the "survey cannot be finalized" or "locked out in the system". Now, I'm not a math expert (I am), but is it POSSSSSIBLE that Miami reduced the Expenses to EQUAL Revenue, so that the report could be submitted?
Yes, it is possible Miami reduced the actual expenses to equal revenue. Or inversely (and more likely), Miami inflated revenue to equal expenses for purposes of the EADA report.
Why would they choose to inflate revenue to equal zero instead of reduce expenses? Because the point of the EADA is to show prospective students how much the university is committed to providing equitable athletic opportunities for its men and women students. The biggest expense number, by far, in the EADA report is athletic scholarships. It would be self-sabotage to reduce the scholarship numbers because then it would look like the university isn't providing athletic opportunities (when schools have been sued over EADA reports, it for vastly overinflating the scholarship numbers, not the other way around). They could also artificially reduce the expenses for travel, coaching etc (the other significant expense categories) but again, if they showed a low number on the EADA in the categories, people would ask "why aren't you spending more on coaches and travel.' It makes no sense to show a reduction in expenses. If the school has 60 million in expenses and 40 million in revenue, it would be beyond stupid for them to report 40 million in expenses just to make revenue match expenses. It would make the school look like it's not providing students with as many opportunities as other schools by comparison. Conversely if the expenses are $60 million and revenues are $40 million, the school will just say it made $60 million in revenue. It's a fake number just like the reduced expenditure number, but it is better to look like you are spending more. One way or another it is cooking the books.
" is it POSSSSSIBLE that Miami reduced the Expenses to EQUAL Revenue, so that the report could be submitted?
So you are asking if it is possible they cooked the books in the opposite direction to be able to submit the report? Sure. And btw thanks for admitting the school POSSSSBILLLY cooked the books.
Note: I went back and edited my post to take out the insults as you seem like a decent guy. Anyways, your turn.
