Too insane.

Gopherhurrin

Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
290
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Wisconsin wants to build a new $76 million dollar "sports facility"/recruiting facility. Those with the most money, Wisconsin, Ohio State, etc build so they can maintain their recruiting advantage over those who have less money. It goes on, and on, and on, and on and on. There is no end in sight, nor is there any functionality, nor value, nor "redeeming social value", nor utility, nor etc in all of this.

At some point, somebody has to publicly scream "Stop!!". We are teaching our young athletes to be baby, spoiled, self centered, weak valued and silly human beings. I am not criticizing the Badgers over us or any other program. This is all just nuts. At some point some group of regents, university presidents or someone has to just say: "We're out."

I would add that I do believe a small example of what needs to be done has been done by the NCAA in regards to the media guilds that every program produces each year. I think they have imposed limits on the size they can be. No more "our media guide is bigger than their media guide!"
Edit/Delete Message:mad:
 


Nice mentality. Let's progress by stifling innovation and embracing apathy.

Kudos to Wisconsin if they make this investment.
 

Sounds like jealousy

You may have missed part of my post: "I am not criticizing the Badgers over us or any other program. This is all just nuts."

And yes, we will "invest" and they will "invest" again, and we will "invest" and they will "invest" some more, etc. What is this product we are all investing in?:confused:

Heck, I'm as conservative as they come and I can't see what this is above a huge waste of always scare dollars.
 

So you want a communist system? They can spend if they want, we just need coaches in place to get a winning program to overcome high spending...
 


Was this really necessary on both boards?

Did we not just build a $300,000,000 stadium? Are we not looking to build a basketball practice facility and a baseball park?
 

My point, thank you. I do not support the basketball practice facility at the U or any other "university". Again, that is the point I am trying to make. This is nuts. TCF was undoing a great mistake of the past.
 

Minnesota is well overdue for a new basketball facility. I have no problem with that investment. College sports are a major business, if you aren't investing, you're falling behind.
 




Gopherhurrin, by criticizing what OSU has done, you are suggesting that you are not in favor of allowing private individuals & businesses to spend their money to support universities as they see fit. All of the athletic projects OSU builds are funded by private donations. Not sure why you threw OSU in there with Wisconsin.
 

Yes I did. OSU has and will continue to win at the big sports because they do have the big money. We can not match that cash flow and never will. My point was that the game has stopped being a game. You buy championships that we can not buy. I don't like that. Are you free to do what you do? Yes, absolutely. Do I like it? Nope, I don't. It seems a horrible distortion of the games and spirit of competition. I would prefer a more level playing field and I would prefer we spend the money on things that matter more than buying championships. But, in a way, I do respect that you just want to keep winning those championships. To be honest, we (the AD here) enjoy getting all that money that you throw out to us for letting you keep this system.
 

More info

Wisconsin seeks new athletics facilityEmail Print Comments28 Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. -- Wisconsin athletic officials are asking for a $76.8 million athletic performance center in the next two-year state budget, five years after a $109.5-million expansion of Camp Randall Stadium.

The University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents will review the request Thursday.

The proposal includes a new multistory building used primarily for football with new locker rooms and weight training facilities for all athletes.

The Regents agreed to a similar $67.2 million plan in the last budget cycle two years ago, but it was spiked by state officials in the approval process.

The proposal includes money to update the sound system and scoreboards at Camp Randall, add new locker rooms for other athletic teams and replace the FieldTurf installed six seasons ago.

The McClain Center, where several teams now practice, would also be updated.

"A whole new facility would really bring this program to a top-notch level where you could say it's second to none," quarterback Scott Tolzien said. "We'd have the locker room right there, the stadium right here and all those facilities literally just footsteps away. I think that would be huge with recruiting and with trying to raise this program to the next level."

The Badgers, nicknamed for lead miners who burrowed into the hillsides in the 19th century like the animal of the same name, may be doing more digging underneath the old stadium.

The plans call for two tunnels to be built, connecting the new locker room in the proposed performance center and the stadium to the antiquated McClain Center, constructed in 1988. The locker room would include multimedia space, recovery rooms, steam and shower rooms and a coaches suite nearby.

According to the proposal, the athletics department would borrow $50 million against its program's revenue and expects $26.8 million in gifts and grants to pay for it. According to a fundraising document, officials are asking for $7 million for naming rights to the building.

"Any time you see places that have 80,000, 90,000 or 100,000 paying all sorts of money to come [to games] and have conference and local TV and radio contracts, those programs are making loads of money," Western Kentucky University sports economist Brian Goff said. "It makes some sense over some time frame to reinvest your capital and keep yourself competitive against the people you're trying to recruit against."


The proposal says bond payments would be made using ticket revenue and the anticipated increase in funds from the Big Ten's expansion, the conference championship game beginning in 2011 and usage fees paid by UW Hospital and Clinics, which would run the sports medicine clinic on the third floor of the building.[/B]

The locker room would be in the lowest level of the performance center with two floors for a new strength and conditioning center. The fourth level would be used by the nearby College of Engineering and a partial fifth floor could be shelled for expansion or as outdoor event space.

"The needs of the athletic programs expanded over the years and the McClain Center now supports all 23 sports and 750 athletes in some fashion," according to the proposal. "This facility has essentially become the 'hub' for all UW-Madison student athletes."

Wide receiver Nick Toon remembers going to Notre Dame on a visit a few years ago and being in awe, even though it didn't sway his opinion to come to Madison, near where he grew up.

"Notre Dame, they had just redone their facilities and they were awesome," Toon said. "Really, the newer the better."

If approved, construction on the new building would begin in December 2011 and be completed by October 2013. The work in Camp Randall would take four months after the end of the 2011 season and should be finished in time for spring practice in 2012. The McClain Center upgrades would be done over 2½ years starting in April 2012.
 

You may have missed part of my post: "I am not criticizing the Badgers over us or any other program. This is all just nuts."

And yes, we will "invest" and they will "invest" again, and we will "invest" and they will "invest" some more, etc. What is this product we are all investing in?:confused:

Heck, I'm as conservative as they come and I can't see what this is above a huge waste of always scare dollars.

You are aware that spending that money ultimately brings in more money, right? It's called investing. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money.
 



How's that theory working out for us as citizens? When was the last time the Athletic Department broke even, given the big investments made at the U over the decades? I understand that getting "free" money from the state and donors benefits the U, but I have not seen or heard of any cash returning to the state or citizens. If, if we would stop this endless spending cycle I could understand your point. But, my point was that it never ends and does US no good.
 

How's that theory working out for us as citizens? When was the last time the Athletic Department broke even, given the big investments made at the U over the decades? I understand that getting "free" money from the state and donors benefits the U, but I have not seen or heard of any cash returning to the state or citizens. If, if we would stop this endless spending cycle I could understand your point. But, my point was that it never ends and does US no good.

Okay? It's a business. They're doing it to benefit themselves. The point isn't to benefit us. Not everything is about us.
 


With a subsidy from the state still. And the free loan to buy out the previous coach. And all the state support to build the stadium. And the athletic fee included in tuition, etc. We can play football and basketball all across the nation without these endlessly silly recruiting facilities.
 

Wisconsin wants to build a new $76 million dollar "sports facility"/recruiting facility. Those with the most money, Wisconsin, Ohio State, etc build so they can maintain their recruiting advantage over those who have less money. It goes on, and on, and on, and on and on. There is no end in sight, nor is there any functionality, nor value, nor "redeeming social value", nor utility, nor etc in all of this.

At some point, somebody has to publicly scream "Stop!!". We are teaching our young athletes to be baby, spoiled, self centered, weak valued and silly human beings. I am not criticizing the Badgers over us or any other program. This is all just nuts. At some point some group of regents, university presidents or someone has to just say: "We're out."

I would add that I do believe a small example of what needs to be done has been done by the NCAA in regards to the media guilds that every program produces each year. I think they have imposed limits on the size they can be. No more "our media guide is bigger than their media guide!"
Edit/Delete Message:mad:


You are fighting a losing battle here. I would give up if I were you. What do you propose the athletic departments spend their money on? The money comes from the AD budget and/or donations specifically to the AD. Should they spend it on women's gymnastics?
 

With a subsidy from the state still. And the free loan to buy out the previous coach. And all the state support to build the stadium. And the athletic fee included in tuition, etc. We can play football and basketball all across the nation without these endlessly silly recruiting facilities.

Then be prepared to watch a very mediocre to poor team with low grade coaching staffs. How fun would that be?
 

"A whole new facility would really bring this program to a top-notch level where you could say it's second to none," quarterback Scott Tolzien said. "We'd have the locker room right there, the stadium right here and all those facilities literally just footsteps away...."

Yeah. Wouldn't want those athletes expending energy on walking!!
 


I agree with Gopherhurrin, partially.

The "arms race" in college athletics has gotten absurd. If someone can explain the economics behind the decision to pay coaches more than any other state employees (especially those who's work affects vastly more people day-to-day), I would like to hear it.

At the same time, it is clear that current school administrations and athletic departments have no choice but to keep up with (or surpass, ideally) their competitors.

I don't think building hugely expensive practice facilities is wrong, but I think the climate or situation that necessitates their construction is unfortunate.
 

I agree with Gopherhurrin, partially.

The "arms race" in college athletics has gotten absurd. If someone can explain the economics behind the decision to pay coaches more than any other state employees (especially those who's work affects vastly more people day-to-day), I would like to hear it.

At the same time, it is clear that current school administrations and athletic departments have no choice but to keep up with (or surpass, ideally) their competitors.

I don't think building hugely expensive practice facilities is wrong, but I think the climate or situation that necessitates their construction is unfortunate.

They may be state employees but most of their income that drives up those salaries is derived from outside funding.

Tubby's base salary at UK when he signed that 8 year, 20+ million deal in 2003 was only 200,000 dollars a year. The other 2 million per came from radio/tv and Nike. That doesn't even factor in things like performance bonuses, incentives, outside income from speaking engagements, the camp money (which I understand his contract with Minnesota is quite favorable in that regard), built in escalators, etc.

I'm guessing the reason his base salary at Minnesota is so much higher (of course factoring in things like inflation, his viability in the market, etc) than it was at Kentucky is because that outside income couldn't bridge the difference. I really don't see the problem if outside income sources, and not tax dollars, are funding these salaries.
 

Ok, to anyone that disagrees with the premise of the OP, let me ask you this:

Do you think there should or shouldn't be a salary cap or luxury tax system in pro sports?
 

Ok, to anyone that disagrees with the premise of the OP, let me ask you this:

Do you think there should or shouldn't be a salary cap or luxury tax system in pro sports?

Totally different issues. You are twisting the topic into paying players now, and paying players salaries is obviously not allowed in the NCAA. If the NCAA allowed different schools to pay players different amounts to come to their school, then your analogy would be a good one, but that isn't the case. People here act like having the best facilities guarantees the best players. But the reality is the best players make decisions to attend schools based on who the coach is moreso than what the facilities are like, otherwise Bo Ryan would be hauling in top-10 recruiting classes every other year instead of never.
 

Totally different issues. You are twisting the topic into paying players now, and paying players salaries is obviously not allowed in the NCAA.

I see your point, OSU, but I still think my query is relevant. As mentioned above, there is an "arms race" going on in college sports. The "free marketers" will say to keep the commies out of it. Others will say that there needs to be a line somewhere - they think that money is ruining college sports.

My point is that even professional sports has had the sense to limit the "arms race" - some sports more than others - realizing that at a certain point, the race, while it may benefit a few, is bad for the whole and that eventually, it will bring the whole thing down. An unchecked free-market usually ends in disaster. Pro sports realizes this. The OP says maybe college sports should realize it too. Particularly since it seems to be straying far from the "original intent" of college sports. I agree.
 

So, OSU, is it the virtue of OSU just to have the best coach? The OSU FB or BB programs have had a lucky and virtuous few decades? To me, you have the money and that makes everything else possible and probable. Yes, it is roughly within the "rules". I object to the rules favoring the rich teams over the poorer teams.
 

I see your point, OSU, but I still think my query is relevant. As mentioned above, there is an "arms race" going on in college sports. The "free marketers" will say to keep the commies out of it. Others will say that there needs to be a line somewhere - they think that money is ruining college sports.

My point is that even professional sports has had the sense to limit the "arms race" - some sports more than others - realizing that at a certain point, the race, while it may benefit a few, is bad for the whole and that eventually, it will bring the whole thing down. An unchecked free-market usually ends in disaster. Pro sports realizes this. The OP says maybe college sports should realize it too. Particularly since it seems to be straying far from the "original intent" of college sports. I agree.

The problem is the same as Professional Sports in a way: Unfettered expansion leads to a dilution of the market and an inability of smaller team/programs to stay afloat or keep up. More and more schools are chasing a dream (and an economic model) that just isn't sustainable. No one is holding a gun to the University of Minnesota's metaphorical head and saying "You must compete at this level or else". They, and other schools like them, choose to for the exposure, the financial windfall, etc.

A lot of schools do it the right way: Their Athletic Departments are self sufficient, don't take away from the academic side, don't use taxpayer dollars or pass the buck on to the general student population. Some of them even use the funds generated to support the Academic side by funding scholarships or capital projects on campus that benefit the institution as a whole. That's the way it should work. Sadly, many don't do that.

And that's where the real problem lays: Schools that can't afford to be in the business of college athletics (in particular football and basketball) shouldn't be in it to begin with. There are countless opportunities that schools could pursue if they choose (and more likely to fit in with the academic mission statement) but they don't because they'd lose the exposure, the financial gain, etc. We can all sit here and wax philosophically about the "integrity" and "purity" of the game but we're also not all flocking to watch D-III and NAIA either.
 

However, for me, it is getting too, too far away from what it was. I dropped MLB and the NFL years ago. As college sports are more and more modeling themselves into an NFL feeder system I am having more and more trouble rationalizing three season tickets. What is this I am paying for? Most of the ticket prices now do not even go to the football program which I increasing find to be too "non university" for my taste in any case. I paying for a practice facility for Gopher BB which is not wanted or needed in any way except it will help to suck up to an ever longer list of Royce White type human beings. What the hell am I doing?!?!
 

However, for me, it is getting too, too far away from what it was. I dropped MLB and the NFL years ago. As college sports are more and more modeling themselves into an NFL feeder system I am having more and more trouble rationalizing three season tickets. What is this I am paying for? Most of the ticket prices now do not even go to the football program which I increasing find to be too "non university" for my taste in any case. I paying for a practice facility for Gopher BB which is not wanted or needed in any way except it will help to suck up to an ever longer list of Royce White type human beings. What the hell am I doing?!?!

Sorry to extend the thread here, but to say the facility is "not needed" is a bit of a stretch. I am probably more sympathetic to your orignal post than most of the responders, but I would disagree that the facility is merely to suck up to recruits. It actually meets a need of having reasonablly flexible practice times for the teams, etc. There really are a lot of demands for court time between both mens and women's programs and rec time. Theoretically, more flexible practice times will allow the players to have more and better quality study time if they choose to use it. While on one level it is keeping up with the rest, it also has a real need. If the athletic department is paying for it (not taxes), it shouldn't matter. It seems your beef is less with the universities than it is with the values that our current society accepts and they live with and act on. As much as we talk about education, most people's connection with the U is sports and it creates goodwill that encourages donations and advocacy for the university in many other areas. It is the experience of virtually every large university in the country.

Tangentially, about 80% of the budget I work with every year is strictly voluntary contributions, very few fees for services. On a fairly regular basis, I need to accept donations from people who want to do something that I would put on a lower priority level in order to have them give to things that are higher on my list. I suspect the fundraising people at the U are in a similar boat. They may see greater needs than than a practice facility, but build it anyway in hopes of getting gifts for other things now or down the road.

I am opposed to the arms race, but if they are funding the arms by themselves, there is not much any of us can do about it. I don't think the practice facility is a purely arms race proposition, though.
 




Top Bottom