I want to puke

Donate To GopherHole

Khaliq said:
They should have built a more modest facility that fit within their budget or not built one at all. I'm sure it will be a nice facility and all but making the local college football team better should be very far down the list of priorities for state and local government.
Click to expand...

While I disagree with the idea that a smaller facility (or to be more accurate, a less fully developed facility of the same size) should have been built, I think this is a more legitimate beef to have. Had the U scaled down their vision for the stadium they could have built it for less. My concern with this idea is that we'd be the B10 school with the MAC stadium.
 

GoAUpher said:
I'm not implying that the U is short on rich alumni. But having lots of rich alumni doesn't mean the Athletic Dept is going to just rake it in. Of course it is their responsibility to get as much money as possible. But just because the money is out there doesn't mean its easy to get. Rich alumni do not equal sports boosters. Maybe those folks don't want their money to go to TCF and would rather donate to scholarships, etc. We are not Michigan, Florida, Virginia, or any of the other schools that were listed who have well established sports booster clubs with deep pockets.

I have no idea if the dept sucked at the job. But again, all you are saying is the money is there and that its the dept's job to get it. That's simply stating the obvious. I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid...I'm just saying its all guesswork on our part whether the dept could/should have done any better with fundraising and assuming that we should be able to fundraise like a Michigan or Florida is a pretty big stretch.
Click to expand...

You're right, we're not OSU, Michigan or Florida. But the University of Minnesota should be able to raise as much money for its football stadium as the University of Viriginia...or Central Florida who funded its own stadium that cost nearly as much, or Lousville. The fact that they had to ask for state money at all speaks poorly of the U's athletic department and of its rich alumni. Do you think if Wisconsin were doing a $300 million upgrade to Camp Randall they would ask the state legislature for help? I somehow doubt it.
 

This discussion ignore's the STATE'S role in the abandonment and demolition of the Old Memorial Stadium.
 

howeda7 said:
Do you think if Wisconsin were doing a $300 million upgrade to Camp Randall they would ask the state legislature for help? I somehow doubt it.
Click to expand...

Well, considering the delays and trouble they had in fundraising for their roughly $100 million renovation on Camp Randall earlier this decade when economic times were great, yes, I think it is likely that if they had to raise $300 million they would need LOTS of help, including help from the state. By the way, they got about $10 million from the state for their $100 million renovation, IIRC.

Whether they'd get state aid is another question, but their legislature has not hesitated to fund stadiums there. They basically ram-rodded stadium funding for Miller Park through years ago and the state just last month approved $5 million to upgrade the Bradley Center, which was funded in part by state funds years ago, as well. Lambeau Field's renovations were funded in part by a county sales tax, too.
 


howeda7 said:
You're right, we're not OSU, Michigan or Florida. But the University of Minnesota should be able to raise as much money for its football stadium as the University of Viriginia...or Central Florida who funded its own stadium that cost nearly as much, or Lousville. The fact that they had to ask for state money at all speaks poorly of the U's athletic department and of its rich alumni. Do you think if Wisconsin were doing a $300 million upgrade to Camp Randall they would ask the state legislature for help? I somehow doubt it.
Click to expand...

1) UCF's stadium cost nowhere near the amount of TCF ($54 million to $288 million). Neither did Louisville ($63 million). And in UCF's case, the naming rights deal they signed with Bright House cable ($15 million) took up a significant chunk of the cost compared to TCF (27% compared to 12%).

2) UVa is known for having strong support from deep pocketed boosters. That was one of the things driving the "Tubby to UVa" talk...they could afford to pony up the money solely because of their boosters.

3) When UW renovated Camp Randall, they paid for it with donations, athletic dept revenues, and state funding. Our athletic dept also doesn't have the revenue that other programs have and use to fund this type of project. Why? Because we made no money in the Dome.

You're correct that the inability to pay for more of the cost reflects poorly on the dept and on the U's rich alumni. But I never disputed that. I've only disputed: A) the expectation to think the U should have paid for TCF without state help despite the poor revenue of the athletic dept and a donor base that isn't inclined to give to U sports and B) the idea that we're somehow just like Michigan or other FB powerhouses when it comes to fundraising simply because we're a big school.
 

GoAUpher said:
1) UCF's stadium cost nowhere near the amount of TCF ($54 million to $288 million). Neither did Louisville ($63 million). And in UCF's case, the naming rights deal they signed with Bright House cable ($15 million) took up a significant chunk of the cost compared to TCF (27% compared to 12%).

2) UVa is known for having strong support from deep pocketed boosters. That was one of the things driving the "Tubby to UVa" talk...they could afford to pony up the money solely because of their boosters.

3) When UW renovated Camp Randall, they paid for it with donations, athletic dept revenues, and state funding. Our athletic dept also doesn't have the revenue that other programs have and use to fund this type of project. Why? Because we made no money in the Dome.

You're correct that the inability to pay for more of the cost reflects poorly on the dept and on the U's rich alumni. But I never disputed that. I've only disputed: A) the expectation to think the U should have paid for TCF without state help despite the poor revenue of the athletic dept and a donor base that isn't inclined to give to U sports and B) the idea that we're somehow just like Michigan or other FB powerhouses when it comes to fundraising simply because we're a big school.
Click to expand...


Apparently our athletic department needs to get some fundraising tips from those responsible for fundraising on the academic side of things because the University of Minnesota does have the 24th largest endowment of all universities in the country and 13th largest of universities with a division 1 football team. Clearly the academic side of fundraising is getting the job done and getting people to give to the university.
 

GopherGod said:
Apparently our athletic department needs to get some fundraising tips from those responsible for fundraising on the academic side of things because the University of Minnesota does have the 24th largest endowment of all universities in the country and 13th largest of universities with a division 1 football team. Clearly the academic side of fundraising is getting the job done and getting people to give to the university.
Click to expand...

Clearly, the Athletic Dept does need to figure out to better connect with the donors and I'm sure some tips couldn't hurt. But that doesn't change the fact that you're claiming that the existence of the money is proof that it should be easy to fundraise for athletics. And given our athletic dept's and football team's history I simply don't agree that this is the case.
 

GoAUpher said:
Clearly, the Athletic Dept does need to figure out to better connect with the donors and I'm sure some tips couldn't hurt. But that doesn't change the fact that you're claiming that the existence of the money is proof that it should be easy to fundraise for athletics. And given our athletic dept's and football team's history I simply don't agree that this is the case.
Click to expand...

True, but for some reason, our state govt thinks that they should decide which "perks" should be made available to all people buying tickets. Selling premium seating is a great money making deal, now the U is forced to offer those perks for the big spenders to general seating. Not a good way to sell spending lots of cash for the football program.

Heck, they convinced me that buying the $500 donation preferred seats was great because of the "perk" of getting a tailgating spot across the street. Give that to everyone, not so good to buy those seats.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom