NorCali

The 42-year-old is, right now, ranked seventh in winning rate (70.5 percent) among active coaches with 10 years experience. The names above him? Mark Few, Bill Self, John Calipari, Rick Pitino, Randy Bennett, Sean Miller and Tom Izzo.

Oh sorry, that state isn't about Drake's coach but Will Wade...

taking HTT10's Big 3 and putting numbers:

Football - B- (85)
Men's Basketball - F (50)
Baseball - A+ (100)

Average: 78.3. C- or D, depending on the scale.
Not what a Top Tier SEC AD should have at his Salary.
But it's President Tate's call...

Serious question. Any of this helping the Flood victims who were abandoned by the Biden Admin? Those folks I have no problem with receiving funds that I helped provide via taxes.

Anyone physically in this country if they can get to an actual emergency room, particularly at a public hospital, like a medical school, based on the EMTALA gets screened. If found to need treatment, gets treated if there is no reasonable place to refer to. EMTALA passed in april of ... 1986

I appreciate the comments but fairly confident in the math on this as years ago I had funded grants. Not NIH but private and I believe the 15% that nih now uses comes from the 15% that is standard.



Here is an AI readout. It clearly hasn’t updated to the 15% cap for NIH but math is shown.


# Indirect Cost Calculation for a $1 Million Grant

## Scenario 1: Using Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC)

Let's assume:
- Total grant amount: $1,000,000
- Negotiated indirect cost rate: 52% (common for research universities)
- Equipment purchase: $150,000
- Subcontract: $100,000

**Step 1: Calculate MTDC base**
Total Direct Costs: $1,000,000
Less excluded costs:
- Equipment: $150,000
- Portion of subcontract exceeding $25,000: $75,000

MTDC base: $1,000,000 - $150,000 - $75,000 = $775,000

**Step 2: Calculate indirect costs**
Indirect costs = MTDC base × Indirect cost rate
Indirect costs = $775,000 × 52% = $403,000

**Total grant with indirect costs: $1,403,000**

## Scenario 2: Using Total Direct Costs (TDC)

Let's assume:
- Total direct costs: $1,000,000
- Negotiated indirect cost rate: 52%

Indirect costs = $1,000,000 × 52% = $520,000

**Total grant with indirect costs: $1,520,000**

## Scenario 3: Using Foundation Rate Cap

Let's assume:
- Total direct costs: $1,000,000
- Foundation cap on indirect costs: 15%

Indirect costs = $1,000,000 × 15% = $150,000

**Total grant with indirect costs: $1,150,000**

## Scenario 4: Using NIH Rate Cap

Let's assume:
- Total direct costs: $1,000,000
- NIH salary cap applies
- NIH indirect cost rate cap: 40%

Indirect costs = $1,000,000 × 40% = $400,000

**Total grant with indirect costs: $1,400,000**

quote:

---

When a university generates a grant, somewhere between 50% and 70% of the value of that grant go into the general education fund. Meaning grants are a huge source of funding for universities. As a huge source of their funding, they desperately want faculty who can generate grants.

---

Not anymore. This is the subject of the entire debate around the DOGE suggested and now accepted cuts to the "indirect" costs of grants. The indirect is what goes to the university, not the professor/lab that wrote the grant, they get the "direct" cost.

The indirect had risen to average north of 50%, as you state. The new cap for indirect costs will be 15%.

What is fascinating to watch is these funded labs that do not understand the contract thinking that the cap in indirect will impact them, it doesn't directly.

a typical R01 is $1 Million over 5 years. Direct. so $1M x 50% is an additionally $500,000 going to the university. Now it will be 15% or $150,000 in this example.

How much is this actually? Well UCSF in a recent year received ~$760 Million from NIH. If their overhead was ~50% that means about 1/3rd of the total was indirect or ~$250M. and $500M direct. Now at 15% they will get $75M instead of the $250M from indirect costs of grants.

UCSF indirect example

Or the dead people ballots mailed in

Territory makes sense
Or actually get solid voter ID laws and take back the house and senate and change constitution, merger some of those tiny new england states

depends. If we get a better deal for the minerals through Russia and avoid dealing with the idiots running the EU, why not?
this war is an inevitable Ukraine loss. They are not part of NATO. No one wants to be in direct war with Russia in Europe. They rely too much on Russia Gas and food from both places. They should have negotiated a stalemate 2 years ago.
Same as if we invaded Canada or Mexico. We eventually win.

If I remember correctly, Russia wanted to join NATO, did they not, and were told no? that looks like a bad decision now...

Throw in the northwest territories and we have continuous land to Alaska.