OPINION: The Detroit News' Nolan Finley keeps reaching for an MSU scandal the facts do not support
Finley once again turns legitimate questions into sweeping conclusions while leaving out the context that complicates his preferred narrative
For the third time this year, I find myself adding important context to a column by Detroit News editorial page editor Nolan Finley.
I have not had to do this so frequently since ESPN repeatedly conflated the crimes of Larry Nassar with Mark Dantonio, Tom Izzo, and Michigan State football and basketball. Once again, the problem is not that every question being raised is illegitimate. It is that Finley starts with a few fair questions, fills in the unanswered parts with the worst possible assumptions, and then presents his preferred version of events as though the evidence leaves no room for another conclusion.
ESPN was a national organization swooping into East Lansing and trying to make sense of a complicated institution, a sprawling scandal, and years of internal history it did not fully understand.
Finley does not have that excuse.
He is here. He covers this state. He has access to the people involved, the documents, the public meetings, and the institutional history. He should be in a better position to separate legitimate concerns from speculation, and write with a degree of fairness that reflects the information available to him. Instead, for the third time this year, I find myself filling in pieces he either did not find or chose not to include.
In his latest column for The Detroit News published online Saturday, Finley argues that President Kevin Guskiewicz returned to Michigan State with the Board of Trustees “in his pocket” and with what he describes as a guarantee that trustees will now “rubber-stamp anything he wants.” It is a sweeping conclusion that transforms an unusual presidential reversal, a revised contract, and long-running disagreements over Spartan Ventures into a story about one man manipulating an entire university governing board.
The problem is not that every question Finley raises is illegitimate. The problem is that Finley repeatedly treats disagreement as evidence, unanswered questions as proof of misconduct, and his own interpretation of events as though it were the only conclusion available. He moves from uncertainty to suspicion and then from suspicion to certainty without supplying the facts necessary to support the journey.
According to Finley’s version of events, Guskiewicz became angry when several trustees challenged him, went shopping for another job, used Clemson to extract more money and control, and then returned to East Lansing only after securing the loyalty of a compliant board. By the end of the column, that interpretation is no longer presented as one possible explanation. It has become a declaration that Guskiewicz played the situation “masterfully” and now effectively controls the people elected to oversee him.
Getting from the facts to that conclusion requires Finley to fill in a remarkable amount of the story himself:
He describes an 11% ownership interest in a commercial revenue entity as the sale of part of Michigan State’s athletic department
He presents assumptions about Guskiewicz’s motives as established fact
He leaves important portions of the compensation timeline out of the discussion
He dismisses the very real outpouring of support that encouraged Guskiewicz and his wife, Amy, to reconsider leaving
He then treats the support of a majority of the Board of Trustees as proof that the president now owns it
The problem with Finley’s latest theory is not merely that it is cynical; it is that the available evidence does not lead where he insists it does.
Legitimate questions do not validate Finley’s larger narrative
Under Guskiewicz’s revised agreement, his annual base salary will increase from approximately $1.03 million to $1.5 million, while his annual deferred compensation will rise from $200,000 to $250,000. The agreement extends his term through March 2031 and provides up to 10 hours each year aboard a private aircraft for personal travel by Guskiewicz, his family, or his guests.
MSU has said philanthropic funding will support the salary increase and will cover the personal aircraft benefit. That arrangement deserves more explanation because private money connected directly to the compensation of the chief executive of a public university creates a level of public interest that goes beyond ordinary philanthropy.
There are reasonable questions to ask here. Are the funds coming from one supporter or several? Are any conditions attached? Do any contributors have business relationships, investment interests, development proposals, contracts, or other matters before the university? Will Guskiewicz know who the donors are? What conflict-of-interest review will occur, and what happens if the private support ends before the contract does?
Rather than pose those questions and press Michigan State for answers, Finley assumes the answers for himself, assigns the worst possible motives, and criticizes the people involved as though his suspicions have already been proven.
Finley never explores whether the funding could be structured in a way that protects donor privacy while also limiting the potential for influence or conflicts of interest. It took me only a few calls to find out that one possible avenue under discussion is the creation of a separate fund or limited liability company to which supporters could contribute. That entity would then make an earmarked donation to the university to support the president’s compensation. The individuals contributing to the fund would be separate from the entity making the donation, and those donors could choose to remain anonymous to both the public and Guskiewicz, if they so choose.
Many people donate to universities, charities, churches, and community organizations without seeking public recognition. Some prefer anonymity for personal, financial, or philosophical reasons, and the decision to remain unnamed should not automatically be treated as evidence that a donor is attempting to purchase influence.
The public does not necessarily need every detail of every private gift made to Michigan State. Donor privacy has long been a normal part of university philanthropy, and institutions have legitimate reasons to protect it. At the same time, when private funds are used to support the compensation of a public university president, MSU should explain the safeguards designed to prevent donors from receiving influence, access, or preferential treatment in return.
Those two principles can coexist. The university can protect the identities of people who wish to give anonymously while still explaining the structure of the fund, the conflict-of-interest protections surrounding it, whether Guskiewicz knows the identities of the contributors, and what controls are in place to ensure that no donor receives special treatment.
Perhaps Finley asked those questions of MSU leadership before manufacturing suspicion about conflicts he has not identified. His column, however, gives no indication that he did.
Confidentiality is not the same as secrecy
Finley also returns to the dispute over trustee access to information connected to Spartan Ventures, even though that debate has already played out publicly and Spartan Ventures has now begun operations.
Trustees were permitted to review certain information and could access additional proprietary records by signing nondisclosure agreements. Those requirements were designed to protect valuations, investment terms, business strategies, and other competitively sensitive information that could weaken Michigan State’s position if disclosed publicly. MSU’s position has consistently been that trustees were not denied access, but were asked to review some information under controlled conditions.
Finley may believe those protections were too restrictive, but disagreement with the university’s approach does not establish that trustees lacked oversight or that the arrangement was improper. Elected trustees should receive the information necessary to govern, while MSU also has a responsibility to protect proprietary business material.
By describing the NDAs as preventing trustees from discussing “university business” with voters, Finley stretches the dispute well beyond its actual scope. The agreements applied to additional Spartan Ventures-related information, not to university business generally.
Spartan Ventures is not what Finley says it is
Finley describes Spartan Ventures as a deal Guskiewicz directed to sell a portion of the athletic department to a private investor, without direct approval by the board. That is not an accurate description of what Michigan State created.
The reported transaction involved an 11% ownership interest in Spartan Media Ventures, a revenue-focused commercial entity. It did not transfer ownership of 11% of Michigan State Athletics.
The university still owns its teams, athletic programs, trademarks, facilities, academic mission, and institutional identity. Private investors did not acquire the authority to hire coaches, select athletes, establish academic policy, direct competition, or govern the athletic department.
What is being monetized is future commercial revenue involving media rights, sponsorship opportunities, branding inventory, licensing opportunities, and other assets connected to Michigan State Athletics.
Finley is free to question whether selling an ownership interest in a commercial affiliate is wise. He can question the valuation, governance protections, investor rights, transparency, financial assumptions, or long-term implications, and all of those would be fair subjects for scrutiny.
However, an ownership stake in Spartan Media Ventures is not an ownership stake in Michigan State Athletics. Finley collapses those two concepts into one phrase because saying that MSU “sold part of its athletic department” sounds considerably more alarming than accurately describing the structure.
There is also important history missing from his account.
The Board of Trustees approved the broader Spartan Ventures strategy, and that authorization opened the door for university leadership to build the entities and financial structures necessary to carry it out. The broader framework ultimately included Spartan Ventures, the Spartan Athletic Foundation, and Spartan Media Ventures, with each designed to perform a different function within the effort to generate revenue and support Michigan State Athletics.
Boards approve strategy and delegate execution. They do not negotiate every investor term, sponsorship agreement, capital structure, or commercial contract line by line. Trustees are responsible for setting direction, establishing guardrails, evaluating leadership, reviewing performance, and holding administrators accountable, while university leadership carries out the strategy the board approved.
Expecting trustees to approve every individual step after authorizing the broader framework would not strengthen governance. At some point, it would become micromanagement. Finley largely skips over that division of responsibility because acknowledging it would complicate his narrative that Guskiewicz acted without meaningful board authority.
Does Guskiewicz have the board “in his pocket”?
Finley’s headline declares that Guskiewicz returned with the board “in his pocket,” while his conclusion goes even further by claiming that MSU now has a guarantee that trustees will “rubber-stamp anything he wants.”
What guarantee?
I’ve reviewed the contract and I've spoken with trustees this week. I can confidently tell you that there is no new rule requiring trustees to support Guskiewicz’s recommendations, no contract provision surrendering the board’s oversight authority, no agreement preventing trustees from voting against the president, and no evidence that Guskiewicz has been granted unilateral control over the university.
Michigan State has eight independently elected trustees. The fact that five or six of them support the president does not mean the president owns the board. A governing-board majority having confidence in the institution’s chief executive is generally a prerequisite for functional governance.
Could that majority become too deferential? Certainly.
Could trustees fail to exercise enough independent oversight? Of course.
Those concerns should be evaluated through decisions, votes, contracts, performance reviews, financial oversight, and specific examples of the board failing to challenge the administration when necessary.
Finley offers none of that.
Under Finley’s standard, a board majority supporting the president becomes proof that the president controls the board. If trustees fight with Guskiewicz, Michigan State is dysfunctional. If most trustees support him, the board is in his pocket. Either way, Finley reaches the same conclusion because the ending appears to have been written before the evidence was considered. The facts may change, but the story stays the same.
There is room for skepticism about what has changed since Guskiewicz announced his departure. The board’s membership has not changed, and many of the same disagreements remain. Some trustees continue to believe recent governance reforms go too far, while others believe stronger expectations are necessary to prevent leaks, public undermining, and individual trustees from attempting to exercise authority outside the board as a whole.
It is fair to ask whether recent conversations produced meaningful change or merely temporary peace. It is fair to wonder how long the current alignment will last, and it is fair to question whether the board’s revised governance expectations will improve institutional performance or suppress legitimate dissent.
Those are open questions. They are not proof of a secret guarantee that trustees will approve anything Guskiewicz requests.
The people Finley writes out of the story
Perhaps the most revealing part of Finley’s column is what receives almost no serious consideration: the Michigan State community.
The day after Guskiewicz and his wife, Amy, returned from a family vacation, Spartans organized the “We ❤️ Kevin” and “We ❤️ Amy” campaign. Signs appeared, messages followed, and alumni, faculty members, students, staff members, donors, legislators, university leaders, and longtime Spartans shared messages of encouragement to the Guskiewiczes.
Tom Izzo became one of the most prominent voices calling for change and urging the Michigan State community to stand behind a president he believed was moving the institution forward.
After Guskiewicz announced his decision to remain, he did not describe one conversation, one contract provision, or one person changing his mind. Instead, he described a cumulative process involving the people who reached out, the relationships he and Amy had built, the work already underway, the leadership team around him, the conversations with Izzo, and a growing belief that Michigan State was still where they belonged.
Finley reduces all of that to boosters donning “sackcloth and ashes.”
That description is dismissive of the people who reached out and the genuine support that helped shape Guskiewicz’s decision.
The outpouring of support does not prove Guskiewicz made the right decision or mean that every criticism of him is unfair. It also does not mean compensation played no role.
A $1.5 million salary, additional deferred compensation, and personal aircraft access are substantial benefits, and it would be naïve to assume they did not matter. It is equally unsupported to assume they were the only things that mattered.
Finley offers no evidence that Guskiewicz orchestrated the entire episode to enrich himself, consolidate power, or force trustees into permanent submission.
He simply writes the story as though that motive has already been established.
MSU deserves scrutiny – and accuracy
Michigan State does not need protection from difficult questions such as these:
What safeguards protect the university from donor influence when private financial support is used to fund part of the president’s compensation?
How will Spartan Ventures continue to balance innovation, confidentiality, public accountability, and university oversight?
What governance changes convinced Guskiewicz that Michigan State could move forward differently?
Those are fair questions, and they are more than enough to justify continued scrutiny. They do not, however, justify filling every gap with the worst possible assumption.
That is where Finley’s column loses its footing. Rather than follow the available evidence, he repeatedly pushes it toward the most damaging conclusion. Taken together, the result feels less like an argument built from the facts than a narrative shaped to reach an ending Finley had already chosen. Hard questions are necessary, but they must begin with accurate premises. Michigan State deserves both.
Spartans Illustrated is supported by readers who value thoughtful, in-depth coverage of Michigan State. Subscribe today to support our work and gain access to all of our coverage.
