Facilities Race: This is what U is up against

Donate To GopherHole


Maximus said:
So have operations costs, coaches salaries, travel costs, recruiting budgets and scholarships.
Click to expand...

Hard to believe the operating costs have increased at the same rate as the BTN revenue. But, let's say it's close for argument's sake. I'm not suggesting they dump 100% of the TV revenue into a practice facility, but perhaps a small percentage - 3-5% annually to grease the skids. Imagine how much they would have accumulated to this point toward a $15 a 20 million facility, had they started doing this 7-8 years ago. Yeah, I know. It's not always that simple. The most logical solutions are often the ones overlooked in favor of the most convenient.
 

I gave up paying attention to the practice facility stuff when I heard about the unrealistic 190 mil project. Stupid question: can we not first worry about a 15 mil practice facility and then add on the ridiculous amount of other stuff? If that doesn't work space-wise, wouldn't we be better off building the practice facility even if it can't be connected to all the other crap that's part of the 190 mil project?

It just seems like as soon as the dream project was announced, it was more like an announcement that we wouldn't be upgrading for a very long time, and if we did, it would be in a much different manner than the original plan.

The situation reminds me a little of Pitino shooting slightly too high recruiting at the expense of more realistic solid players like Macura. Obviously we offered him, but it seemed like if we made him more of a priority right away that he would've stayed. In other words, it seems like we need to build the program up a little bit with more realistic options before shooting so high.

Insert Dr. Don GH expert comment next
 



rsgopher said:
In all reality, why is the state funding any buildings for any university. Unless there is research being conducted at the request of the governer i dont understand why any university expects the state to pony up money for anything. With tuition going through the roof in the last 10 years, there should be plenty of reserves for projects like these. If not, time to do some fundraising before asking our legislature.
Click to expand...

The state certainly benefits from the U more than a lot of other things it sepends money on.

Frankly, the U should have known it couldn't raise this money, and had its ducks in a row to hitch a ride on the Vikings stadium funding. TCF funding passed in large part because of the Twins, and legislators would have similarly had a hard time saying 'yes we'll give our pal Ziggy $300 million, but we won't give the U $100 million.' Then again, that would have required Maturi to be proactive about something.
 

builtbadgers said:
private funding. UVA used all private funds for JPJ. Helps when one donor gives 150 million. UW got the bulk of the Kohl Center done on the backs of two gifts. One for 75 million,one for 25. UM needs alumni to step up.
Click to expand...

JPJ was done largely thanks to the one donor. And if it hadn't been him, there's 20 others they could have gone to. I'm not sure one of the wealthiest public University's is a valid comparison in this case. It would be nice if MN had someone other than Denny Sanford who would step up like Kohl did for UW though.
 

howeda7 said:
The state certainly benefits from the U more than a lot of other things it sepends money on.

Frankly, the U should have known it couldn't raise this money, and had its ducks in a row to hitch a ride on the Vikings stadium funding. TCF funding passed in large part because of the Twins, and legislators would have similarly had a hard time saying 'yes we'll give our pal Ziggy $300 million, but we won't give the U $100 million.' Then again, that would have required Maturi to be proactive about something.
Click to expand...

Well, that's ironic.
 

rsgopher said:
In all reality, why is the state funding any buildings for any university. Unless there is research being conducted at the request of the governer i dont understand why any university expects the state to pony up money for anything. With tuition going through the roof in the last 10 years, there should be plenty of reserves for projects like these. If not, time to do some fundraising before asking our legislature.
Click to expand...

Many of the buildings on the U campus were built 100+ years ago when it was a lot cheaper to build and these buildings need repair and upkeep and updating for modern technology. Look what it cost to modernize and repair Northrop, some of which was done with donated money, but the state kicked in money. You can't expect the needed repairs and updates to come out of the everyday budget. Maybe the U has deferred too much maintenance for too long, but dollars are scarce. Heck, look at elementary, junior high, and high school buildings in the inner city and inner ring suburbs-older and in need of a lot of repairs and updates.

I think this is also what the Athletic Department is running into with it's older buildings like Bierman and Williams. The state has to issue bonds to the U to build things, including the Athletic Department (even if we fundraise 100% of the $190 million). That is where Pres. Kaler & Norwood Teague have to educate the legislature, that this will be money well spent. The Athletic Department is a great marketing tool for the U when football, basketball, and hockey are going well (as well as non-revenue sports). I'm sure they are equating successful athletics with successful fundraising across the board for the whole University (like Texas A&M and the 740 million). People have great pride in their university when they see athletics doing well and it provides a great front door to see what else the U is doing. I think it's been the other way around for too long and let's see the great young men and women that compete for the U show how great this place is!
 



Let's also remember the U receives roughly 17% of it's budget revenue from the state leg. That is way down from the 47% of the early 70's. Before that it was over 50%.
 

Maybe this is cultural. Have we always been this cheap and unwilling to invest in physical improvements? I attended a conference yesterday with some out-of-state speakers talking about transportation funding. One noted that Pennsylvania just got serious about infrastructure, passing a funding package that will increase funding by $2.4 billion a year. As this speaker declared, thinking big is an option.
 

fryguy22 said:
Well, that's ironic.
Click to expand...

Not really. Sorry, but I put Maturi about 10th on the list of people most responsbile for TCF. And it's not as though it got shoved through at some record speed. It still took years.
 

If our U wins with consistency then we will build them what they are asking for, if not, no excuses.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom