(02-02-2023 09:22 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If our university president completely ignored the Heery Report and the locations on campus that would support an OCS, & also believed it needed to be over 50k, then we either have a complete fool leading this university or a president who never gave an OCS much consideration.

The initial studies and the Heery Report are from 2007-2008. Raines and the committee issued a statement very quickly, dismissing it and saying no OCS.

(02-02-2023 10:40 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 09:22 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If our university president completely ignored the Heery Report and the locations on campus that would support an OCS, & also believed it needed to be over 50k, then we either have a complete fool leading this university or a president who never gave an OCS much consideration.

The initial studies and the Heery Report are from 2007-2008. Raines and the committee issued a statement very quickly, dismissing it and saying no OCS.

I don't know the answer to this, and I presume the answer will be a "no," but has the layout of the University changed much since the Heery Report was published? It doesn't make sense for the President to make such a statement when there were multiple potential sites presented, all on land that was already owned by the school.

(02-02-2023 10:16 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 09:22 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If our university president completely ignored the Heery Report and the locations on campus that would support an OCS, & also believed it needed to be over 50k, then we either have a complete fool leading this university or a president who never gave an OCS much consideration.

They are simply doing what they have been told. It is THE CITY OF MEMPHIS that is squashing an OCS. It is what it is. If you want an OCS, you first have to take control of politics in the city of Memphis. Then you can start the fight. Until then, forget it.

Yep.

Neither the city nor the university wanted an OCS. The city again needs a regular tenant to help justify the 100’s of millions going into Liberty Park & the university & many of its ambassador level boosters are beholden to the city… and most are not alumni of the school.

The combination will keep football in the red & the university firmly cemented in a G5 conference.

(02-02-2023 11:11 AM)msu35 Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 10:40 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 09:22 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If our university president completely ignored the Heery Report and the locations on campus that would support an OCS, & also believed it needed to be over 50k, then we either have a complete fool leading this university or a president who never gave an OCS much consideration.

The initial studies and the Heery Report are from 2007-2008. Raines and the committee issued a statement very quickly, dismissing it and saying no OCS.

I don't know the answer to this, and I presume the answer will be a "no," but has the layout of the University changed much since the Heery Report was published? It doesn't make sense for the President to make such a statement when there were multiple potential sites presented, all on land that was already owned by the school.

Over the years, other posters have sporadically mentioned new construction within the 5 proposed sites. I am sure that there has been some construction in the last 15 years.

(02-02-2023 11:14 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 10:16 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 09:22 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If our university president completely ignored the Heery Report and the locations on campus that would support an OCS, & also believed it needed to be over 50k, then we either have a complete fool leading this university or a president who never gave an OCS much consideration.

They are simply doing what they have been told. It is THE CITY OF MEMPHIS that is squashing an OCS. It is what it is. If you want an OCS, you first have to take control of politics in the city of Memphis. Then you can start the fight. Until then, forget it.

Yep.

Neither the city nor the university wanted an OCS. The city again needs a regular tenant to help justify the 100’s of millions going into Liberty Park & the university & many of its ambassador level boosters are beholden to the city… and most are not alumni of the school.

The combination will keep football in the red & the university firmly cemented in a G5 conference.

Per this link, the University is scheduled to pay out roughly $875K over a five-year period to lease the Liberty Bowl. While not an insignificant sum, it's also not that much money in regards to the operating and maintenance costs over the same time period. Perhaps it's not in the best interests of the University to take on building an OCS with the amount of capital required in addition to the ongoing expenses to maintain and operate it. If they build it and the fans don't come, what then?

(02-02-2023 11:29 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 11:11 AM)msu35 Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 10:40 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 09:22 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If our university president completely ignored the Heery Report and the locations on campus that would support an OCS, & also believed it needed to be over 50k, then we either have a complete fool leading this university or a president who never gave an OCS much consideration.

The initial studies and the Heery Report are from 2007-2008. Raines and the committee issued a statement very quickly, dismissing it and saying no OCS.

I don't know the answer to this, and I presume the answer will be a "no," but has the layout of the University changed much since the Heery Report was published? It doesn't make sense for the President to make such a statement when there were multiple potential sites presented, all on land that was already owned by the school.

Over the years, other posters have sporadically mentioned new construction within the 5 proposed sites. I am sure that there has been some construction in the last 15 years.

That's what I thought may have occurred. Perhaps the same options aren't available now and it will require private land acquisition which would really inflate the costs, absurdly so.

(02-02-2023 11:14 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 10:16 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 09:22 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If our university president completely ignored the Heery Report and the locations on campus that would support an OCS, & also believed it needed to be over 50k, then we either have a complete fool leading this university or a president who never gave an OCS much consideration.

They are simply doing what they have been told. It is THE CITY OF MEMPHIS that is squashing an OCS. It is what it is. If you want an OCS, you first have to take control of politics in the city of Memphis. Then you can start the fight. Until then, forget it.

Yep.

Neither the city nor the university wanted an OCS. The city again needs a regular tenant to help justify the 100’s of millions going into Liberty Park & the university & many of its ambassador level boosters are beholden to the city… and most are not alumni of the school.

The combination will keep football in the red & the university firmly cemented in a G5 conference.

Don't blame the school. The school would love if funds could be raised for an OCS; but they can't. Why keep harping on it? If you want your company to give you a Porsche but instead, they lease you a BMW, what will you do? Drive the K-Car and ***** about not being given a Porsche, or just accept that for MANY reasons, the Porsche isn't happening, and be happy that the BMW is better than the K-Car?

(02-02-2023 10:16 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 09:22 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If our university president completely ignored the Heery Report and the locations on campus that would support an OCS, & also believed it needed to be over 50k, then we either have a complete fool leading this university or a president who never gave an OCS much consideration.

They are simply doing what they have been told. It is THE CITY OF MEMPHIS that is squashing an OCS. It is what it is. If you want an OCS, you first have to take control of politics in the city of Memphis. Then you can start the fight. Until then, forget it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the school is inflating the cost of an OCS to make it completely out of reach, to save face. In 2007, the initial report said that it would cost over $187 million to make a duplicate of UCF's stadium, which cost $47 and opened in 2007.

Now they are saying that a new stadium will cost $400 million, when Colorado State's stadium cost $243 million, and the stadiums built by Lousyville could probably be built for even less.

So my guess is even if buildings have to be torn down, land has to be built, and this will take time, the amounts and timeline are being grossly inflated by the school. How much land do you have to buy to build a stadium on or adjacent to your own campus?

In the end, no doubt that the school and the boosters are scared to death over the fact that it was almost impossible to raise $20 million for an IPF. No rant by any of the same posters who have been going crazy over this, will be able to overcome that fact.

I'm tired of the $20 million for the IPF song and dance. An IPF doesn't make an income stream. An IPF is never visited by alumni and fans. An IPF is a transitory facility for one sport. An IPF builds virtually zero school pride.

Raising money for an IPF is not sexy and doesn't signify an institutional-level change.

A stadium is everything the IPF is not and more. Comparing the two things is apples and oranges.

(02-02-2023 01:52 PM)Claw Wrote:  I'm tired of the $20 million for the IPF song and dance. An IPF doesn't make an income stream. An IPF is never visited by alumni and fans. An IPF is a transitory facility for one sport. An IPF builds virtually zero school pride.

Raising money for an IPF is not sexy and doesn't signify an institutional-level change.

A stadium is everything the IPF is not and more. Comparing the two things is apples and oranges.

I'd wager that being able to practice comfortably and conveniently is a pretty important consideration. Surely a nice IPF would impress recruits, hence improving recruiting. Hard to fill stands if you don't have the horses to win games. In the grand scheme of things, $20 million is a drop in the bucket for a stadium if you have to buy the land from numerous third parties to make it happen. I don't know if land acquisition is necessarily required, but it would make sense if previously proposed locations have already been allocated to other projects.

Referencing the Heery Report is a great baseline, but let's be honest, it's over a decade old and without question out of date at this stage. I'm sure there are still elements that are valid today, so it's useful as a baseline for discussion; but without a new study, it's challenging to say that there's a 1:1 application in today's world. Land concerns notwithstanding, in the post-COVID supply chain reality, building costs alone have increased significantly and that doesn't even factor in increased cost as a result of inflation.

It's attractive to cite simple solutions to problems, but unfortunately, the world is complex and a decade-plus old study won't necessarily be wholly applicable today. The administration knows far more about this issue than any of us. I'm sure they would prefer an OCS if it were feasible, as there are many potential benefits that may result from it. Nevertheless, we're likely getting a substantial renovation for the Liberty Bowl, and that's not too shabby. Glass half-full.

There are locations in that report that are still as they were when it was published.

(02-02-2023 02:45 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  There are locations in that report that are still as they were when it was published.

But are they optimal locations? Do you know if the University is currently evaluating those locations for other projects that may take precedence? It's not so black and white.

(02-02-2023 01:08 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 11:14 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 10:16 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 09:22 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If our university president completely ignored the Heery Report and the locations on campus that would support an OCS, & also believed it needed to be over 50k, then we either have a complete fool leading this university or a president who never gave an OCS much consideration.

They are simply doing what they have been told. It is THE CITY OF MEMPHIS that is squashing an OCS. It is what it is. If you want an OCS, you first have to take control of politics in the city of Memphis. Then you can start the fight. Until then, forget it.

Yep.

Neither the city nor the university wanted an OCS. The city again needs a regular tenant to help justify the 100’s of millions going into Liberty Park & the university & many of its ambassador level boosters are beholden to the city… and most are not alumni of the school.

The combination will keep football in the red & the university firmly cemented in a G5 conference.

Don't blame the school. The school would love if funds could be raised for an OCS; but they can't. Why keep harping on it? If you want your company to give you a Porsche but instead, they lease you a BMW, what will you do? Drive the K-Car and ***** about not being given a Porsche, or just accept that for MANY reasons, the Porsche isn't happening, and be happy that the BMW is better than the K-Car?

I harp on it because the university made no attempt to petition the state for funds and is again making itself reliant on the city to keep its football program viable. If the speaker of the house made the decree that investing in Liberty Park is justified because it will help the U of M in its quest for a P5 conference, then why didn’t the university make the compelling case for an OCS on its own??? There is no question an OCS would better position the university for the step up, but instead, we’ve opted to rent.
We are where we are for a reason.

(02-02-2023 03:07 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  I harp on it because the university made no attempt to petition the state for funds and is again making itself reliant on the city to keep its football program viable. If the speaker of the house makes the decree that investing in Liberty Park is justified because it helps the U of M in its quest for a P5 conference, then why didn’t the university make the compelling case for an OCS on its own??? There is no question an OCS would be position the university for the step up, but instead, we’ve opted to rent.
We are where we are for a reason.

Did you miss the post from "griffin" that is in direct opposition to what you just wrote? He specifically stated that they did and were told that it wasn't going to happen. This was both from the State and also the big money boosters. If you are saying that isn't true, how exactly are you privy to more information than an insider?

Respectfully, I'm convinced you have no idea what you're talking about here based on what has already been stated in this regard by someone who would be in a position to know. That is unless you have an inside track to top-level individuals associated with the school or government. Is that the case??

(02-02-2023 01:52 PM)Claw Wrote:  I'm tired of the $20 million for the IPF song and dance. An IPF doesn't make an income stream. An IPF is never visited by alumni and fans. An IPF is a transitory facility for one sport. An IPF builds virtually zero school pride.

Raising money for an IPF is not sexy and doesn't signify an institutional-level change.

A stadium is everything the IPF is not and more. Comparing the two things is apples and oranges.

It was $9 million in 1998 and $19.5 million in 2018. Houston and Cincinnati both have more than twice the number of students we have, and at least $1.3 billion endowments. Our endowment is at $220.

Tired of it? That is your entire argument, going into hysterics every day. How about if you try and get commitments for $10 million yourself and you are on the hook personally for any difference between that and the amount you raise.

When you barely raise any money, we can tell you how "tired" we are with your excuses. You aren't going to do a damn thing...ZERO, and you are going to get a stadium with $250 million in renovations; and you will complain about it as if you are doing everything you can and everyone else is to blame.

(02-02-2023 03:12 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-02-2023 01:52 PM)Claw Wrote:  I'm tired of the $20 million for the IPF song and dance. An IPF doesn't make an income stream. An IPF is never visited by alumni and fans. An IPF is a transitory facility for one sport. An IPF builds virtually zero school pride.

Raising money for an IPF is not sexy and doesn't signify an institutional-level change.

A stadium is everything the IPF is not and more. Comparing the two things is apples and oranges.

It was $9 million in 1998 and $19.5 million in 2018. Houston and Cincinnati both have more than twice the number of students we have, and at least $1.3 billion endowments. Our endowment is at $220.

Tired of it? That is your entire argument, going into hysterics every day. How about if you try and get commitments for $10 million yourself and you are on the hook personally for any difference between that and the amount you raise.

When you barely raise any money, we can tell you how "tired" we are with your excuses. You aren't going to do a damn thing...ZERO, and you are going to get a stadium with $250 million in renovations; and you will complain about it as if you are doing everything you can and everyone else is to blame.

For the record, I am off the OCS now bandwagon.

I am convinced it is impossible first and foremost due to the opposition of the city government.

If that is indeed the case, I simply wish the administration would make that public rather than citing every other reason it cannot be done.

(01-30-2023 04:58 PM)msu35 Wrote:  Talk about a biased, snarky assassination job against South Florida by a homer for the Knights. Ha ha.

Do you remember when USF was in a P5 conference with UC & UL & UCF was still in the Sun Belt with Arkansas State & playing in a wonderful municipally owned facility, the Citrus Bowl?

What changed? USF was playing & competing in the Big East & rose as high as #2 in the country, while UCF was abysmal in the Sun Belt.
What changed?

(02-02-2023 03:31 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 04:58 PM)msu35 Wrote:  Talk about a biased, snarky assassination job against South Florida by a homer for the Knights. Ha ha.

Do you remember when USF was in a P5 conference with UC & UL & UCF was still in the Sun Belt with Arkansas State & playing in a wonderful municipally owned facility, the Citrus Bowl?

What changed? USF was playing & competing in the Big East & rose as high as #2 in the country, while UCF was abysmal in the Sun Belt.
What changed?

What changed? South Florida started to suck and UCF started to win. You never did answer any of the questions I posed earlier, so I'm going to assume you know not what you speak of.

You know what else change Marc? The subject as you employ your tactic of ignoring and deflecting when you can't provide an answer to support what you assert.

P.S.

That absolutely was a biased, snarky assassination job against South Florida by a homer for the Knights. Try to stay on topic.

(02-02-2023 03:28 PM)Claw Wrote:  For the record, I am off the OCS now bandwagon.

I am convinced it is impossible first and foremost due to the opposition of the city government.

If that is indeed the case, I simply wish the administration would make that public rather than citing every other reason it cannot be done.

I can assure you that if the University could get private funding, it makes no difference what the city government wants. The facts are that nobody is willing to pony up the big bucks necessary to make it happen, and this includes the "fans" of the team. So apparently, it's not that important, collectively speaking, except for the select few who are disproportionately vocal about it.