My point that no improvements pay for themselves still stands. So why are you singling out stadium expansion for not paying for itself? It will certainly generate more revenue than the new football center.
Stanford dropped to 50,000 which is still more than we can fit into our stadium. And you have to remember, Stanford was not known as a football school. Harbaugh took them to new places, but that was short lived.
Stanford's new 50,000 seat stadium opened in 2006. The first time they sold it out was in 2008. That is definitely not the school to hold up as an example for how we should run our football program.
Here's an article from 2012 about Stanford's pathetic attendance. They finished 11-2 that year, won the Pac 12 Championship and a Rose Bowl berth, but their average attendance was only 43,343. That was good for 11th in the Pac 12, with Washington State behind them. They hosted the Pac 12 championship game that season and only had an announced attendance of 31,622 for it.
http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-footb...r-the-program/
We don't want to be like Stanford. We want to be like all those SEC teams that are expanding their stadiums.
I can't figure out what your issue is with what I said about DirecTV. It's a fact that if DirecTV thought enough people wanted to watch a network to make it worth their while to pay for it, then they'd carry that network. If they don't want to carry the Pac 12 network it's because they don't think it's worth it. How is this a controversial statement?