(04-23-2015 11:33 AM)colohank Wrote: I've enjoyed watching the construction activity at Nippert Stadium, but I can't help wondering...
Would a responsible public university administration approve the expenditure of more than eighty million bucks to upgrade a football stadium and another big chunk of change to upgrade a basketball venue with the hope that those projects might motivate a P5 conference to extend an invitation, or would it do so only if it knew for sure that such an invitation was imminent?
If the former, isn't that one hell of a gamble?
There's a very fine line, methinks, between building a ticket to the big time and building a couple of big white elephants.
1) It's absolute gamble, but one the university HAD to take. Brian Kelly was clear on the issue: Nippert...as it used to be...hamstrung the FB program because it had NO alternate revenue streams. Plus fans were also fairly clear: the stadium...as it was...was a negative in that concessions, restrooms, and basic traffic flow made going to the games more a labor than a joy. Hopefully both of those things have now been addressed.
2) What other solutions...even if UC ends up for a long time outside the "Power" world did you have? Akron fairly recently built a whole new stadium. So did North Texas. There was no option to build new...certainly not at $87MM. So you're left with having to invest in Nippert or (presumably) disband FB. Some said "Use Paul Brown Stadium" which makes some sense except that PBS is a privately held venture meaning that you have to take whatever terms the Brown family offered you. Look at what's happening in Philadelphia, where Temple is in a similar situation and facing a HUGE rent increase. (FWIW, I think Temple FB will be one of the casualties of the realignment.) Pitt is dissimilar because the University of Pittsburgh is a co-investor in Heinz Field. So, the $87MM the University invested in Nippert belongs TO US, whereas we would have been paying that much...and probably more...over the long-haul to a private family in rent.
3) If you're going to use Nippert, there are some inherent realities you have to accept:
A) It is more expensive to build on the site because of existing infrastructure (so part of that $87MM is just the reality of building where you are).
B) There will always be a tight, MAXIMUM capacity (meaning you are going to have to live with the idea that Nippert, no matter HOW much you pour into it will never exceed a certain number, probably in the range of 55-65k).
C) But what is spent here, STAYS here...and will bring more in through concessions, parking, and on-campus sales. (Whereas going off-campus means that all those things leave the University...)
D) The more people you have coming INTO campus translates into free publicity for the future of the University in terms of future students. (How many kids end up going to the University they first started dreaming of when they went to games there?)
In short, I think the University HAD to do this and do it now. The funding was there NOW, the interest was there NOW. It may well payoff down the road in a "Power" conference invitation, but the University had to take the chance to do this now even if it doesn't.