(05-26-2022 11:08 PM)CRM114 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 04:51 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 04:25 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 04:01 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 02:02 PM)Claw Wrote:  In time they, unlike you, might learn the history of the school. The time frame of our stadium issue isn't decades. It is over a century long.

I’m 74 years old the stadium DOES NOT MATTER!!!!!

^^THIS^^

Being old doesn't make you right.

Crump Stadium AND Liberty Bowl stadium were built to attract neutral-site SEC games to Memphis. And they did.

You know what happened?

Those SEC schools discovered it was much more profitable to expand their own stadiums and not play in Memphis. They kept all their own revenue.

Meanwhile, Memphis State continued to rent the Liberty Bowl. Year after year other schools made money. Year after year Memphis State did not.

There is a reason we are decades behind, and one of those reasons is decades of lost revenue.

The facts are quite clear.

In 1963 when the city decided to build the LB, MSU could not have even begun to build an OCS to meet its needs. You're talking about a school that had only been a University for 6 years. It was only 3 years into being University Division (later Div. 1A and then FBS). A very high proportion of its alumni base, from which money would have to be raised, were school teachers. The law school was only a year old and not yet accredited. Doctoral degrees were not yet being awarded.

Your university is growing rapidly and you have big dreams for your football program, which just finished an undefeated season and is staring to be competitive with the nearby SEC powers. The city comes along and says, we're going to build a modern 50,000 seat stadium - nearly as large as Neyland Stadium was at that time - and you'll be the primary tenant. Not on campus, but less than two miles down Central Ave. MSU knew they wouldn't be able to build their own stadium like that anytime in the near future, so it was a no-brainer to go along with that.

What happened for the next fifty years had very little to do with the stadium, which was still above average for a good 20-25 years, and much more to do with the mediocre product put on the field most years. It was not until 2013 that the University really got serious about building, financing and sustaining a good football program. Had it done that 20 or even 10 years earlier, we'd already be playing in the Big 12 or perhaps the ACC...and still playing our home games at 335. S. Hollywood St.

I think that is very accurate. The problem is that in 2013 it was very obvious what we needed to do, and rather than making long-range plans to do it, we did nothing. The stadium ceased to be desirable in the 90's, but yes, the football product was poor.

Nonetheless, the choice to not have an on-campus facility has been repeatedly made year after year for a century. Each time a new master plan is released, there is still no land set aside for a stadium. This has been a deliberate planning decision. It has cost us millions in revenue that we will never see.

We are about to let well over 100 million dollars of money from our supposed boosters be given away to upgrade a facility that doesn't belong to us, doesn't profit us, and doesn't improve our campus. 100 MILLION DOLLARS. I'd rather see that spent on buildings on campus and just play in the stadium like it is. It belongs to the city. We should not be paying for this.

If we do pay for it, we better damn well be getting the revenue from all the suite rentals, parking, and concessions. If I see that happen I will calm down a bit, but I think the chances of that happening are slim.