From studies, comments & commitments to OCS facilities that I have seen (UCF, SMU, Houston, Tulane & even renovations at P5 schools, OM comes to mind), the reasoning is not primarily to gaining P5 status, although that is a big motivation, the primary motivation is to increase alumni participation & student involvement. Public facilities off-campus cannot accomplish those things. Speaking specifically about our university, it is common knowledge that alumni support is relatively low, as is student involvement. OC facilities for FB & BB would increase involvement by those groups & would lead to greater financial commitment by current & future alumni. Even in a G5 environment, our university would be well served to have OC facilities both in terms of increased participation by students & alumni - and more importantly by the increase financial contribution of alumni that would come with increased participation. Our stated university goal of increasing resident students & increasing out-of-state students creates a very good opportunity to increase participation by current students & current/future alumni. All of the studies that I have seen clearly indicate development of OC facilities pays for themselves.

If schools can't get into the P5, football will be on life support. If its able to hang around at all.

(08-27-2014 12:13 PM)dcg141 Wrote:  If schools can't get into the P5, football will be on life support. If its able to hang around at all.

We've been on life support for over 30 years.

(08-27-2014 12:52 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 12:13 PM)dcg141 Wrote:  If schools can't get into the P5, football will be on life support. If its able to hang around at all.

We've been on life support for over 30 years.

Actually we've been shooting ourselves in the foot since the 60s with no real university investment in the FB program beyond several talented coaches, with various talented & committed groups of players. Even during periods of relative FB success since the 60s when significant steps could have been taken by the school administration to improve the image & standing of our FB program among fans, supporter, donors, boosters, alumni - and the major FB programs throughout the country, instead our school admin was complicit with city & state politicians to keep our university subservient to the city in terms of facilities & facilities funding. This lack of investment & commitment confirmed a regional & national image of our university as a commuter school with a 2nd level FB program. Ironically the city's selfishness & control, which has served to divert funding for FB & BB facilities used by our university, have also worked to retard revenues that the city & state might otherwise be getting if our university had achieved the FB program status that a city & region the size of Memphis & the mid-south should have.

Who WERE these talented coaches?

(08-27-2014 02:01 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  Who WERE these talented coaches?

Spook Murphy, Fred Pancoast, Rex Dockery come to mind without much thought, maybe Charley Bailey too. Stobart & West had some good years but not sure how talented they were.

(08-27-2014 02:01 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  Who WERE these talented coaches?

Dockery & West come to mind. Dockery had us on the verge of being the next FSU and West had us rolling pre heart issues.

How many of these talented coaches were innovative ? I've seen the sprint draw be our staple for 40+ years. Rex, God bless him wasn't here long enough and I think Fichtner and DeAngelo just made Tommy look good. The rest ? Pfft

(08-27-2014 02:47 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  How many of these talented coaches were innovative ? I've seen the sprint draw be our staple for 40+ years. Rex, God bless him wasn't here long enough and I think Fichtner and DeAngelo just made Tommy look good. The rest ? Pfft

Tommy had us in the spread way before it became the norm. Fichtner did play a big part but TW has to get credit as he hired him and he was the head guy.

Unfortunatly the ship has sailed, and mean really sailed this time. So the G5 now occupies football no mans land.

(08-27-2014 03:23 PM)dcg141 Wrote:  Unfortunatly the ship has sailed, and mean really sailed this time. So the G5 now occupies football no mans land.

If you are suggesting giving up, you can kiss my ass.

(08-28-2014 07:41 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 03:23 PM)dcg141 Wrote:  Unfortunatly the ship has sailed, and mean really sailed this time. So the G5 now occupies football no mans land.

If you are suggesting giving up, you can kiss my ass.

I am suggesting there may be better ways to spend money than a new staduim. If it does not result in getting us into the P5 its a waste of money.

As soon as we think we know what's happening with the standings of college FB & particular schools, things change that create the potential for possibilities even the most astute don't expect or are able to predict. Not unlike the game itself where there are upsets with every week on the schedule that virtually none of the "experts" predict, there very well may be similar unexpected or unpredicted events that could change the position, standing & opportunities for our university relative to its FB program and college FB in general. Tulane, Houston, SMU, UCF, Cincy - for example just within our conference, are taking steps to improve the FB program & the experience of their fans, supporters etc through current, recent or planned expansions or new facilities. If our university wants to be able to take advantage of opportunities for advancing the FB program & improving the experience of those that support the program, we must make the investments required. Again studies show that facilities improvements pay for themselves not only by helping schools improve their standing in the college game but more importantly increase support from alumni and students (who will be future alumni) & this substantially increases the long term revenue stream from alumni in general.

At the same time our university must continue to improve on-field performance. FSU & Louiseville are great examples of schools that were either behind us (Louisvile) or approximately equal (FSU) with our university in the 60s. They performed & built the programs, we didn't. We see the results. Yet ironically, the city of Memphis & surrounding region can clearly support a university in Memphis as a big time player in college FB.

(08-26-2014 11:32 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  http://csnbbs.com/thread-699887.html

I'm not dissatisfied with what we have for now, but we should put a stadium on the campus master plan. If nothing else, doing that will keep local government honest in rent negotiations, etc.

Agree whole heartedly !!!

(08-27-2014 02:49 PM)UofMTigerFan Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 02:47 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  How many of these talented coaches were innovative ? I've seen the sprint draw be our staple for 40+ years. Rex, God bless him wasn't here long enough and I think Fichtner and DeAngelo just made Tommy look good. The rest ? Pfft

Tommy had us in the spread way before it became the norm. Fichtner did play a big part but TW has to get credit as he hired him and he was the head guy.

We had an innovative offense that put up huge points and a defense filled with playmakers. That team would have been even better if the players knew what they had at the beginning of the season. It took them a while to realize how good they were and to start playing like it. The other thing that tainted that season was the disappointing season ending loss before the bowl game. IMO, a case of being happy to go to a bowl game and letting up.

By the end of the season, that team was playing like a top 10 team.

(08-28-2014 07:41 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 03:23 PM)dcg141 Wrote:  Unfortunatly the ship has sailed, and mean really sailed this time. So the G5 now occupies football no mans land.

If you are suggesting giving up, you can kiss my ass.

No one is suggesting giving up, but if you think we're going to be in a P5 conference in any way shape or form considering where we are now and what our school's done in this program's history to better us, then you're crazy. Until the UofM gets richer, smarter, and can get lazy asses to the LBMS on Saturdays we're in trouble.

(08-28-2014 09:39 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  As soon as we think we know what's happening with the standings of college FB & particular schools, things change that create the potential for possibilities even the most astute don't expect or are able to predict. Not unlike the game itself where there are upsets with every week on the schedule that virtually none of the "experts" predict, there very well may be similar unexpected or unpredicted events that could change the position, standing & opportunities for our university relative to its FB program and college FB in general. Tulane, Houston, SMU, UCF, Cincy - for example just within our conference, are taking steps to improve the FB program & the experience of their fans, supporters etc through current, recent or planned expansions or new facilities. If our university wants to be able to take advantage of opportunities for advancing the FB program & improving the experience of those that support the program, we must make the investments required. Again studies show that facilities improvements pay for themselves not only by helping schools improve their standing in the college game but more importantly increase support from alumni and students (who will be future alumni) & this substantially increases the long term revenue stream from alumni in general.

At the same time our university must continue to improve on-field performance. FSU & Louiseville are great examples of schools that were either behind us (Louisvile) or approximately equal (FSU) with our university in the 60s. They performed & built the programs, we didn't. We see the results. Yet ironically, the city of Memphis & surrounding region can clearly support a university in Memphis as a big time player in college FB.

I admire your optimism and no one can say for sure how the landscape will ultimatly play out. But given that only 3 schools have moved up the numbers aren't good. I own a business and maybe I see everything through those eyes now and if it were my decision to make I would use the money elsewhere. Getting into the P5 it would be a slamdunk, you could play for the staduim with the increased tv money alone.

(08-27-2014 02:49 PM)UofMTigerFan Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 02:47 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  How many of these talented coaches were innovative ? I've seen the sprint draw be our staple for 40+ years. Rex, God bless him wasn't here long enough and I think Fichtner and DeAngelo just made Tommy look good. The rest ? Pfft

Tommy had us in the spread way before it became the norm. Fichtner did play a big part but TW has to get credit as he hired him and he was the head guy.

I think DeAngelo deserves most of the credit for TW's decent years. The thing that pisses me off most about TW was that he didn't capitalize on DeAngelo's time here in terms of building for the future. Guys like DeAngelo are so rare (both as people and players) and you HAVE to use that to your advantage. TW just kinda sat back and let DeAngelo do his thing and seemed not to care about what happened after he was gone.

(08-26-2014 11:59 AM)MemphisTiger15 Wrote:  those both look awesome

I think it's the lights. Neither looked all that impressive to me.

(08-26-2014 11:32 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  http://csnbbs.com/thread-699887.html

I'm not dissatisfied with what we have for now, but we should put a stadium on the campus master plan. If nothing else, doing that will keep local government honest in rent negotiations, etc.

New stadium didn't help Houston AT ALL!