(02-14-2023 05:34 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I'll end with agreeing (I think we are) that if we spent a few more million on head coaching, we might find the athletic success to probvide more of the budget to pursue a lot of these and other ideras. I've always posted that I consider athletics a subset of Universiyt marketing and bugetarily I'd put it there as far as accounting, with the requisite goodwill estimation acciounted for as well.

Now, about those generators OurLand posted about...make it so....

I'm ignoring most of what you posted before this. Sorry, but you just don't get what I'm saying... Since you like my avatar comments, perhaps you should also read my signature.

Now to the above...

If you can figure out how to win without integrating with the University in order to get the 'buy in' necessary to do what we both probably agree needs to be done then more power to you... and we don't need to integrate. SOme very smart people have been after that for decades now without success.

As I've said... we've been trucking generators in for decades. Why do YOU think we haven't made them permanent? 100k is a rounding error to what we've spent on the EZF, the north fields and south additions, plus the new stadium improvements. I mean, you seem to think all we have to do is fund 100k... so why haven't we while we've raised some $100mm?? Spedning probably ten thousand dollars each time we rent them?

And there is nothing for us to 'fund' in my ideas. All we have to do is let the University do what it was probably going to do anyway.


And I'm not really doing this to drive more interest in football... in the way that 'winning' would. I'm doing this to drive more interest from people who don't care one bit about athletics and SURE don't support spending tens of millions of dollars on it to allow those of us who DO care about athletics to do so... and in my mind, that comes from them seeing a USE for athletics or at least our facilities.