Port, I love you; you know that. But this is an endless and unresolvable argument. Both sides just say the same things in response to one another, over and over again.Originally Posted by Portland Ute
Port, I love you; you know that. But this is an endless and unresolvable argument. Both sides just say the same things in response to one another, over and over again.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
If this were 20 years ago, I'd agree wholeheartedly. However, hoops attendance is down just about everywhere. Football is growing almost everywhere. Yes, there is caution in expanding too quickly (Tennessee is having a bit of buyer's remorse with its efforts to keep up with Michigan and Penn State, for example, and they're 7-8 years into a drought that ultimately Utah could be looking down the pipe as well). I'm not as pro-expansion as some, and I'm certainly with Hill when it comes to improving our facilities in the Olympic sports. In that regard, you could say I'm neutral or even anti-expansion. But those adamant about expansion are bringing much better arguments to the table than those who think Hill is acting prudently. I'm not saying the latter isn't happening, but I've yet to see one sensible, yet emphatic argument against expansion. I would like to see one.
Football pays the bills. Get the stadium expanded, get football competitive (and basketball as well), then worry about the Olympic sports. It's sad that's the way the world works, but no one cares about the softball field except the girl recruit and her parents. No one cares if the softball team goes 2-15 in conference play.
Get the locker room updated, expand the stadium to 50-55K, then move on to other sports.
Two rebuttals and an agreement
1. I care if the softball team goes 2-15 in league play. I don't demand championships in the Olympic sports, but fielding competitive teams is something we all should want as Ute fans.
2. There isn't a soul alive who would have ever envisioned gymnastics becoming what it is today 35 years ago. We have to, at the very least, give the Olympic sports a boost of some kind so that we can have that dominant Olympic sport team(s). If all we care about is football, then we're not much better than Boise State, from a pure athletics standpoint (I think their success in hoops is almost by accident, and could be short-lived, but is still a million miles from what football has done).
3. I am in full agreement on the locker room. This is without question the most pressing demand facing the program today and it's long overdue and can only be properly done with a renovation/expansion of the SEZ.
The argument isn't against expansion, it's against expansion right now
It's a project that will cost well over the $50,000,000 mark the rebuild cost.
Reality is that's a separate fundraiser. So, you either do that, or all the other projects. We don't have the donors in place right now to do both, and frankly the basketball and football facilities are more important.
While additional ticket revenue is nice, the team still has expenses such as rent (which I'm guessing goes up after expansion).
I don't think anyone is against expansion, but I have no issues waiting a couple more years to start that project. We need to be wise with our money, especially while we're still not getting a full share of the conference revenue.
So, what's going on with this rent thing? Who owns RES?
The University.
I agree with this line of thinking. What is the ROI on the expansion? In simple terms, if we add 10,000 seats, and sell those seats at $400 per season, that is 12.5 years before we start seeing a profit on those seats, at the soonest. And that is assuming it is that simple, which it is not. There are a lot of additional risks, including the cost of financing, rent, upkeep, assuming we can sell out all of the seats for 12.5 years or more.
I'd like to see it get done from a big picture perspective, but I know I don't see the details that those in decision-making roles see.
“To me there is no dishonor in being wrong and learning. There is dishonor in willful ignorance and there is dishonor in disrespect.” James Hatch, former Navy Seal and current Yale student.
What is the return on investment for a softball stadium? A track? A women's soccer field?
Or a football or basketball facility, for that matter?
(I'd argue that the latter two at least "feed the beasts".)
The argument that there isn't a great ROI on doing the SEZ and the locker rooms is rendered ineffective when you start looking at the ROI on other projects for the athletic department where there is absolutely ZERO hope of every getting ANY return on those investments.
You haven't figured in concessions, parking, crimson club donations etc...
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
"Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum
"And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla
It may also be worth noting that the engineering and architecture on a project of that scope could take upward of a year (and cost up to $5MM). Construction would have to be planned around the FB season also I would assume. It is entirely reasonable that the project if announced today would not even break ground until early 2015. I haven't paid attention to how the university handles these projects. Do they announce them before or after the planning phase?
At any rate, my understanding is that the PAC12 wanted Utah to make immediate improvements to their non-revenue facilities upon induction to the confrence, am I wrong? If I am not wrong then is not Hill just making good on these promises? The projects listed for non-revenue sports seem to be projects that can be completed quickly to show progress toward getting up to PAC12 standards.
I think that was the commitment. REs needs upgrading, but it is not as far off the PAC-12 standard as the non-revenue facilities were. WSU's stadium holds just over 35,000. Universitiea are not generally expanding their stadiums to much beyond 55-60,000. Cal actually reduced the size of its stadium by 10,000 seats (it still holds 63,000). Arizona's capacity is 56,000 (which is about where I think we will be eventually).
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Then why doesn't anyone associated with the athletic department disclose this important information? It would quash this kind of discussion in an instant. I'm of the opinion that if such a requirement was made, that it should be made public. It would help the fans understand what is going on and why. It would very likely lead to increased donations.
Instead, we don't hear a word about it? It's not as if Chris Hill hasn't been asked or had the chance to disclose such a requirement, commitment or agreement.
Seems awfully odd that such a commitment or agreement would exist but Hill would not talk about it when questioned over and over and over again about stadium expansion.
I don't think it's been confirmed. I don't really know, Port, what understandings might exist, or if any really do exist. I do know Hill's not a liar and that he makes decisions based on principle. Disagree with him all you want.
Last edited by LA Ute; 08-07-2013 at 12:48 AM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
And Stanford reduced its capacity from 90,000 to 50,000. Remember when it hosted a Super Bowl?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote