- Joined
- Nov 3, 2008
- Messages
- 5,172
- Reaction score
- 1,386
- Points
- 113
Gopher Basketball Practice Facility: Is the Wait Almost Over?
By J.B. Bauer
What can be expected from a new facility, and more importantly, when?
The University of Minnesota department of athletics is expected to reveal the results of its master facilities planning project in the near future. For years the school has said a basketball practice facility is a need. A facilities plan may drum up support, but history shows impressive plans and great vision often are not enough to get a facility built.
(for pictures and plenty more, click the link as well):
http://www.gopherhole.com/news_article/show/260991?referrer_id=388419
Minnesota fans have frequently heard about the need for a men’s basketball practice facility since the hiring of Tubby Smith in 2007. When Norwood Teague was hired as athletic director in 2012 he acknowledged that a new basketball practice facility was a need and not a want.
Teague’s staff and a third-party firm have been working on a master facilities plan for months, but specifics of the plan have yet to be released. Speaking to the press in late February, Teague said he expected the plan to be finalized by April and that it could carry a price tag of $80 to $125 million.
The calendar will soon turn to June. While there hasn’t yet been an unveiling of the plans it should come in the near future.
The master facilities plan will include numerous projects. While the $80 to $125 million estimate hasn’t been publicly broken down by each individual project (and could increase by the time it’s announced), a reasonable expectation for the basketball practice facility would appear to be in or near the range of $15 to $20 million.
Many Big Ten basketball programs have embarked on similar projects over the past several years. By looking at these recent examples, Minnesota fans can get a good feel for what a new practice facility would look like and the challenges that may be encountered during the process.
Recent Fundraising Efforts Sputtered
In October 2009, Gopher Athletics began planning for a new men’s and women’s basketball development center. Predesign concepts and plans were completed, as was a feasibility study. By early 2011 the University’s Golden Gopher Fund was advertising that the early phases of fundraising for a $15 million basketball development center were “well under way”.
Minnesota’s stated goal was to begin construction on the center in early 2013. The funding process was to begin with 50% of the funding coming from “leadership gifts”. From there the University would move to a “major gifts” phase before finalizing the funding campaign with a final “grassroots effort”.
All indications are that the efforts of the past few years have resulted in no major leadership gifts. With a new head men’s basketball coach in Richard Pitino and a forthcoming plan that potential donors can visualize, Minnesota hopes private funds can be raised for the project.
Much More Than a Gym
The men’s basketball team faces very real time constraints due to sharing practice space at Williams Arena with others. However, a practice facility is much more than just a floor and some baskets to shoot on.
Common amenities seen in Big Ten basketball practice facilities include the following:
Multiple courts which allow the men’s and women’s team to practice at the same time; 24-hour access
Locker rooms, often with technology such as iPads and state-of-the-art video delivery products which enable players to watch film and access team material
Players’ lounge where teammates can gather to study or unwind with video games and music
Training rooms with rehabilitation devices such as hot/cold tubs and physical therapy pools
Strength and conditioning areas with free weights, cardio machines, etc.
Coaching and staff offices, including academic support and sports medicine
Video/instruction meeting rooms
Public areas that showcase memorabilia, trophies and other historical achievements of the program
Multiple levels – if there isn’t a lot of ground space, building vertically can be a good option
Timeline
Timelines vary and can be painfully long. Construction for these projects often takes 18 to 24 months to complete, but getting to the ground breaking is the difficult part.
A master facilities plan with a basketball practice facility at the top of the priority list is nice to have, but until construction begins it often means very little. Ultimately it’s all about money. Where is it coming from and how much has been secured?
Nebraska’s Executive Associate Athletic Director Marc Boehm said that when he arrived in 2003 the school already had a basketball practice facility in its master plan. However, essentially nothing happened until the master plans were revisited in 2008. Nebraska received a lead gift of $10 million in the spring of 2009 and the $19 million Hendricks Training Complex was completed in the fall of 2011.
Ohio State has enjoyed a high level of on court success since Thad Matta became the Buckeyes’ head coach in 2004. In 2006 Ohio State recognized the need for a new facility and by 2007 fundraising for a $22 million building began. Three years later and the project had received commitments of less than $5 million.
The Buckeyes finally began construction on a scaled back project in mid-2012. When approved the estimated costs were $13.8 million. By November the estimate (and amount approved by the Board of Trustees) had risen to $19.5 million. Construction issues and delays were cited as a part of the higher costs.
Once a ground breaking date has been set and approved, you can feel good about the near term prospects of a practice facility. However, until construction has been given the OK, history says that even beautifully designed plans can sit on the shelf for many years before becoming reality.
Schools often announce a large lead gift when unveiling their facility project(s). Sometimes this energizes the fundraising base, but history also has shown that a nice start to fundraising isn’t always a great indication that a project will be completed according to the school’s desired timeline.
Funding
Minnesota might only be two years away from a practice facility if a large gift(s) is received or Norwood Teague is able to utilize some crafty political skills and financial creativity.
Many schools will describe projects as being privately funded, but the flow of funds is usually more complex. Rarely do you see an athletic department take in cash from donors and then use that cash to pay for construction.
Funding requirements tend to change when difficulties are encountered. Based on the state of Minnesota’s facilities as compared to their peers, something figures to give sooner than later.
The Gophers’ baseball team finally had the first stage of their longtime plans addressed with the rebuilding of Siebert Field in 2012. The budgeted project costs were approximately $7.1 million. This project has frequently been referred to as “fully privately funded”, but that’s quite a stretch.
Gophers Athletics said they had committed $1 million from their general operating fund. In addition, many of the private donations toward the project were in the form of pledges to make future payments.
When the University Of Minnesota Board Of Regents approved the project just days before it began, their meeting materials indicated that one source of funding was $2.9 million from grants and gifts. Nearly $4.3 million was to come from University funds.
How Will Gopher Basketball Get It Done?
Is the facilities “arms race” in college sports sustainable? Probably not. To be sure, university presidents and athletic directors have a difficult challenge to spend responsibly yet competitively.
Ideally Minnesota will be the recipient of a generous gift(s) that gets them over the halfway point toward full funding.
Sid Hartman of the Minneapolis Star Tribune wrote last week, “Apparently there is some good news about fund-raising for a Gophers basketball building for the men and women, and the total needed to get the building started is nearly reached.”
That rumor may prove to be true, but this is precisely the type of language to be wary of.
Less comfortable paths to funding the project could include increasing student fees, allocation of athletic revenues, or state and/or school contributions.
Student fees – The student services fee for the 2012-13 academic year was $368. Some of those monies could potentially be reallocated toward a basketball facility project or a temporary increase in fees could be implemented. Organizations currently receiving financial support through the student services fee like the University Quidditch League, Campus Atheists, Skeptics & Humanists (CASH) and the Lutheran Student Movement might not like this idea.
If a temporary five-year, $50 per semester fee was implemented for 40,000 students, $20 million of funding would be taken care of.
Allocation of athletic revenues – Some athletic departments have reasoned that they won’t be taking general university funds by earmarking certain athletic revenues (for example, revenue earned through conference contracts with media networks or premium seating fees) to fund a construction project. However, most athletic departments receive some level of institutional support and a construction project is ultimately going to cost the school.
This method of funding is often little more than providing an alternate explanation of current circumstances. It doesn’t require any new revenue inflow; rather it’s just a decision on paper that allocates current inflows to a specific purpose.
State and/or University contributions – While some governments and universities have given outright contributions toward an athletic department’s projects, others have provided funding via debt that must be repaid in the future. For a Gopher basketball practice facility to be built in the near term it appears likely that the athletic department would need some form of assistant from the general funds of the University or State.
$15 to $20 million is a lot of money, but relative to what the state of Minnesota gives to the University each year (well over half a billion dollars per year), it’s a drop in the bucket.
To further put the cost of a practice facility into perspective, the U’s 2012 6-year capital plan for 2013-2018 called for more than a billion dollars in capital expenditures.
(for pictures and plenty more, click the link as well):
http://www.gopherhole.com/news_article/show/260991?referrer_id=388419
By J.B. Bauer
What can be expected from a new facility, and more importantly, when?
The University of Minnesota department of athletics is expected to reveal the results of its master facilities planning project in the near future. For years the school has said a basketball practice facility is a need. A facilities plan may drum up support, but history shows impressive plans and great vision often are not enough to get a facility built.
(for pictures and plenty more, click the link as well):
http://www.gopherhole.com/news_article/show/260991?referrer_id=388419
Minnesota fans have frequently heard about the need for a men’s basketball practice facility since the hiring of Tubby Smith in 2007. When Norwood Teague was hired as athletic director in 2012 he acknowledged that a new basketball practice facility was a need and not a want.
Teague’s staff and a third-party firm have been working on a master facilities plan for months, but specifics of the plan have yet to be released. Speaking to the press in late February, Teague said he expected the plan to be finalized by April and that it could carry a price tag of $80 to $125 million.
The calendar will soon turn to June. While there hasn’t yet been an unveiling of the plans it should come in the near future.
The master facilities plan will include numerous projects. While the $80 to $125 million estimate hasn’t been publicly broken down by each individual project (and could increase by the time it’s announced), a reasonable expectation for the basketball practice facility would appear to be in or near the range of $15 to $20 million.
Many Big Ten basketball programs have embarked on similar projects over the past several years. By looking at these recent examples, Minnesota fans can get a good feel for what a new practice facility would look like and the challenges that may be encountered during the process.
Recent Fundraising Efforts Sputtered
In October 2009, Gopher Athletics began planning for a new men’s and women’s basketball development center. Predesign concepts and plans were completed, as was a feasibility study. By early 2011 the University’s Golden Gopher Fund was advertising that the early phases of fundraising for a $15 million basketball development center were “well under way”.
Minnesota’s stated goal was to begin construction on the center in early 2013. The funding process was to begin with 50% of the funding coming from “leadership gifts”. From there the University would move to a “major gifts” phase before finalizing the funding campaign with a final “grassroots effort”.
All indications are that the efforts of the past few years have resulted in no major leadership gifts. With a new head men’s basketball coach in Richard Pitino and a forthcoming plan that potential donors can visualize, Minnesota hopes private funds can be raised for the project.
Much More Than a Gym
The men’s basketball team faces very real time constraints due to sharing practice space at Williams Arena with others. However, a practice facility is much more than just a floor and some baskets to shoot on.
Common amenities seen in Big Ten basketball practice facilities include the following:
Multiple courts which allow the men’s and women’s team to practice at the same time; 24-hour access
Locker rooms, often with technology such as iPads and state-of-the-art video delivery products which enable players to watch film and access team material
Players’ lounge where teammates can gather to study or unwind with video games and music
Training rooms with rehabilitation devices such as hot/cold tubs and physical therapy pools
Strength and conditioning areas with free weights, cardio machines, etc.
Coaching and staff offices, including academic support and sports medicine
Video/instruction meeting rooms
Public areas that showcase memorabilia, trophies and other historical achievements of the program
Multiple levels – if there isn’t a lot of ground space, building vertically can be a good option
Timeline
Timelines vary and can be painfully long. Construction for these projects often takes 18 to 24 months to complete, but getting to the ground breaking is the difficult part.
A master facilities plan with a basketball practice facility at the top of the priority list is nice to have, but until construction begins it often means very little. Ultimately it’s all about money. Where is it coming from and how much has been secured?
Nebraska’s Executive Associate Athletic Director Marc Boehm said that when he arrived in 2003 the school already had a basketball practice facility in its master plan. However, essentially nothing happened until the master plans were revisited in 2008. Nebraska received a lead gift of $10 million in the spring of 2009 and the $19 million Hendricks Training Complex was completed in the fall of 2011.
Ohio State has enjoyed a high level of on court success since Thad Matta became the Buckeyes’ head coach in 2004. In 2006 Ohio State recognized the need for a new facility and by 2007 fundraising for a $22 million building began. Three years later and the project had received commitments of less than $5 million.
The Buckeyes finally began construction on a scaled back project in mid-2012. When approved the estimated costs were $13.8 million. By November the estimate (and amount approved by the Board of Trustees) had risen to $19.5 million. Construction issues and delays were cited as a part of the higher costs.
Once a ground breaking date has been set and approved, you can feel good about the near term prospects of a practice facility. However, until construction has been given the OK, history says that even beautifully designed plans can sit on the shelf for many years before becoming reality.
Schools often announce a large lead gift when unveiling their facility project(s). Sometimes this energizes the fundraising base, but history also has shown that a nice start to fundraising isn’t always a great indication that a project will be completed according to the school’s desired timeline.
Funding
Minnesota might only be two years away from a practice facility if a large gift(s) is received or Norwood Teague is able to utilize some crafty political skills and financial creativity.
Many schools will describe projects as being privately funded, but the flow of funds is usually more complex. Rarely do you see an athletic department take in cash from donors and then use that cash to pay for construction.
Funding requirements tend to change when difficulties are encountered. Based on the state of Minnesota’s facilities as compared to their peers, something figures to give sooner than later.
The Gophers’ baseball team finally had the first stage of their longtime plans addressed with the rebuilding of Siebert Field in 2012. The budgeted project costs were approximately $7.1 million. This project has frequently been referred to as “fully privately funded”, but that’s quite a stretch.
Gophers Athletics said they had committed $1 million from their general operating fund. In addition, many of the private donations toward the project were in the form of pledges to make future payments.
When the University Of Minnesota Board Of Regents approved the project just days before it began, their meeting materials indicated that one source of funding was $2.9 million from grants and gifts. Nearly $4.3 million was to come from University funds.
How Will Gopher Basketball Get It Done?
Is the facilities “arms race” in college sports sustainable? Probably not. To be sure, university presidents and athletic directors have a difficult challenge to spend responsibly yet competitively.
Ideally Minnesota will be the recipient of a generous gift(s) that gets them over the halfway point toward full funding.
Sid Hartman of the Minneapolis Star Tribune wrote last week, “Apparently there is some good news about fund-raising for a Gophers basketball building for the men and women, and the total needed to get the building started is nearly reached.”
That rumor may prove to be true, but this is precisely the type of language to be wary of.
Less comfortable paths to funding the project could include increasing student fees, allocation of athletic revenues, or state and/or school contributions.
Student fees – The student services fee for the 2012-13 academic year was $368. Some of those monies could potentially be reallocated toward a basketball facility project or a temporary increase in fees could be implemented. Organizations currently receiving financial support through the student services fee like the University Quidditch League, Campus Atheists, Skeptics & Humanists (CASH) and the Lutheran Student Movement might not like this idea.
If a temporary five-year, $50 per semester fee was implemented for 40,000 students, $20 million of funding would be taken care of.
Allocation of athletic revenues – Some athletic departments have reasoned that they won’t be taking general university funds by earmarking certain athletic revenues (for example, revenue earned through conference contracts with media networks or premium seating fees) to fund a construction project. However, most athletic departments receive some level of institutional support and a construction project is ultimately going to cost the school.
This method of funding is often little more than providing an alternate explanation of current circumstances. It doesn’t require any new revenue inflow; rather it’s just a decision on paper that allocates current inflows to a specific purpose.
State and/or University contributions – While some governments and universities have given outright contributions toward an athletic department’s projects, others have provided funding via debt that must be repaid in the future. For a Gopher basketball practice facility to be built in the near term it appears likely that the athletic department would need some form of assistant from the general funds of the University or State.
$15 to $20 million is a lot of money, but relative to what the state of Minnesota gives to the University each year (well over half a billion dollars per year), it’s a drop in the bucket.
To further put the cost of a practice facility into perspective, the U’s 2012 6-year capital plan for 2013-2018 called for more than a billion dollars in capital expenditures.
(for pictures and plenty more, click the link as well):
http://www.gopherhole.com/news_article/show/260991?referrer_id=388419
