(02-03-2015 04:09 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Here's an article on Temple's stadium dilemma which references Akron's experience. They borrowed $55M in bonds, and have had trouble meeting a $3.1M debt service with stadium revenue.

Colo St is discussed, and the financial projections aren't good.

Nice article. Although it is a little one sided. Doesn't mention rent. Doesn't mention any success stories (Baylor certainly looks like one-but being in the P5 is different, UCF has probably done well).

(02-04-2015 09:30 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 06:10 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 05:12 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/mornin...ml?ana=twt


Legislature vote to allow CSU to borrow $220 million to build an on-campus stadium.

http://stadium.colostate.edu/

Link to stadium renderings.


Looks like they are breaking ground this summer and will open in 2017.

Why???

Well one thing is the Hughes Stadium is 50 years old. Also, it was stated that for Hughes Stadium to last another 40 years, $125 million would be needed. So why not just build a new one and have it on campus rather so students can be more involved?
If I didn't have a car 4 miles is a bit to walk to a game.

And that was the issue with Akron. They either had to build a new stadium, spend a bunch on the Rubber Bowl or drop football.

(02-01-2015 06:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 05:58 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 01:42 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Edit: I went and looked at some pictures. It looks better from a viewpoint closer to ground. Still though, something seemed off. I realized what it was when I saw that this stadium was made for 40k but was built with the mindset of expanding it to 50k in the future.

The stadium looks incomplete and from certain views you can see the portions of the stands where they would obviously fill in when they decide to expand it.

It's no secret that Houston designed, and poured the footings & foundations for, a 60,000 seat stadium. Then built a 40,000 seat stadium. I would say that's smart, wouldn't you?

As for where we would "fill in" seats, if you are talking about the gap in the NW corner, that would never be filled as AttackCoog noted. See below for the skyline view. Every suiteholder gets this view. As do the stadium club members, and all the upper deck home fans:

Yeah, that view tells me the story.

In terms of being smart? Of course, but that means it is incomplete until it is complete. What is the better route between going for a 40k stadium with plans to go to 60k or just setting up a finished product at 50k?

Right now it isn't a fair comparison. We have one finished product and one drawing.

Oh come on... there is a difference between being 'incomplete', and just prepositioning some unseen infrastructure to support future expansion. The public sitting in the Houston stadium does not see incomplete, they see a great completed stadium. That the mechanism is in place to facilitate expansion is just UofH being smart.

UofH did this one right, it's a fantastic venue. I was at the opening game.

(02-03-2015 04:09 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Here's an article on Temple's stadium dilemma which references Akron's experience. They borrowed $55M in bonds, and have had trouble meeting a $3.1M debt service with stadium revenue.

Colo St is discussed, and the financial projections aren't good.

Akron it seems hoped for the best and instead got a worse case scenario. The old adage "if you build it, they will come" did still hold for them, but only as a novelty.

If Akron won, we wouldn't be talking about this. They might not be averaging in the upper 20k's per season, but their attendance would certainly be 20k a game (I would think).


For G5 schools building new stadiums, in my opinion you have to plan for the worse case attendance. And that means just living with the cost of borrowing the money as part of the school's overall costs/debts (like building a new academic hall) or you get students to pay for it with fees. It goes without saying that donors will be pleaded with for money to build it, of course.

(02-03-2015 05:32 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  But that is not the case today in some states....as I noted that in the State of Florida, that can't be done today (i.e. state general fund $$$ used to build college sports stadiums/arenas/renovations, etc...).

There might be other states that don't allow public funds to be used in that way as well.

In regards to performance...both teams are playing "like schools/programs" in their conf, that receive the same TV $$$, Conf $$$ as the other.

UCF never won a conf title or got ranked when they played in the off-campus city owned stadium....team's overall performance certainly has improved greatly since they moved to playing on-campus games in their own on-campus stadiums.

I can't question the success that UCF has had in their new stadium, though I would question that the stadium itself caused the success by itself.

Minnesota has already enjoyed improved success in TCF, the last couple seasons under Kill. In that case though, there's no doubt that the stadium (along with the $150million they're going to spend on practice facilities in the next couple years) greatly enhanced the competitiveness of the program on its own.


That sucks to hear about Florida's situation. But I also did specify "flagship", which I don't consider USF or UCF to be. (no more than UNF or UWF, anyhow)

(02-03-2015 06:10 PM)Underdog Wrote:  Why???

Nothing wrong with issuing bonds to pay for a capital project that the people of Colorado can enjoy for the next 30-40 years.

(02-04-2015 09:30 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Well one thing is the Hughes Stadium is 50 years old. Also, it was stated that for Hughes Stadium to last another 40 years, $125 million would be needed. So why not just build a new one and have it on campus rather so students can be more involved?
If I didn't have a car 4 miles is a bit to walk to a game.

Agreed. For that much money, it makes sense to build new on-campus.

If Hughes was already on campus, then a renovation would make sense.

(02-04-2015 10:40 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 06:07 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 05:58 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 01:42 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Edit: I went and looked at some pictures. It looks better from a viewpoint closer to ground. Still though, something seemed off. I realized what it was when I saw that this stadium was made for 40k but was built with the mindset of expanding it to 50k in the future.

The stadium looks incomplete and from certain views you can see the portions of the stands where they would obviously fill in when they decide to expand it.

It's no secret that Houston designed, and poured the footings & foundations for, a 60,000 seat stadium. Then built a 40,000 seat stadium. I would say that's smart, wouldn't you?

As for where we would "fill in" seats, if you are talking about the gap in the NW corner, that would never be filled as AttackCoog noted. See below for the skyline view. Every suiteholder gets this view. As do the stadium club members, and all the upper deck home fans:

Yeah, that view tells me the story.

In terms of being smart? Of course, but that means it is incomplete until it is complete. What is the better route between going for a 40k stadium with plans to go to 60k or just setting up a finished product at 50k?

Right now it isn't a fair comparison. We have one finished product and one drawing.

Oh come on... there is a difference between being 'incomplete', and just prepositioning some unseen infrastructure to support future expansion. The public sitting in the Houston stadium does not see incomplete, they see a great completed stadium. That the mechanism is in place to facilitate expansion is just UofH being smart.

UofH did this one right, it's a fantastic venue. I was at the opening game.

It is a matter of opinion and a matter of perspective. I was talking about it based upon the pictures I had seen. You saw it firsthand. Why are you bothering to come at me like this as if our experiences are equal?

My opinion still stands as in the pictures the concept of the CSU stadium looks more complete.

(02-04-2015 04:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 04:09 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Here's an article on Temple's stadium dilemma which references Akron's experience. They borrowed $55M in bonds, and have had trouble meeting a $3.1M debt service with stadium revenue.

Colo St is discussed, and the financial projections aren't good.

Akron it seems hoped for the best and instead got a worse case scenario. The old adage "if you build it, they will come" did still hold for them, but only as a novelty.

If Akron won, we wouldn't be talking about this. They might not be averaging in the upper 20k's per season, but their attendance would certainly be 20k a game (I would think).


For G5 schools building new stadiums, in my opinion you have to plan for the worse case attendance. And that means just living with the cost of borrowing the money as part of the school's overall costs/debts (like building a new academic hall) or you get students to pay for it with fees. It goes without saying that donors will be pleaded with for money to build it, of course.

There was no actual choice to make it was either the new stadium or drop football. The Rubber Bowl is a wreck. From what I understand the required (not desired but required) changes to make the Rubber Bowl a continued venue would cost more to implement than building the new stadium. The new stadium was the cheaper option with further benefits of being closer and newer for the students.

You can argue about whether Akron should keep football or not but keeping the old Rubber Bowl was not a realistic option.

(02-03-2015 03:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 09:34 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  State of Minnesota funded 48% of the cost of TCF Bank Stadium for the Charter Member of the Big Ten (1896: Univ of Minnesota Football ), while UCF planned their first ever on-campus stadium while they were in the MAC for Football and ASUN for all other sports and didn't receive one dime from the State for the construction of their football stadium. (After FSU "stole" millions and millions for their stadium/expansion from the state...its actually a state law that state general funds can't be used to build college sporting facilities in FLA now).

One would hope that TCF Bank Stadium and BHNS are different...but in on-the-field performance, its been UCF that has benefited the most from their new/only on-campus stadium.

Since TCF Bank Stadium opened at Univ of Minnesota:
Top 20 rankings: None
Top 10 rankings: None
Divisional Titles: None
Conf Championships: None
BCS Bowl Appearances: None
BCS Bowl Wins: None

Since BHNS opened at UCF"
Top 20 rankings: 2
Top 10 rankings: 1
Divisional Titles: 4
Conf Championships: 3
BCS Bowl Appearances: 1
BCS Bowl Wins: 1

Of course the state of Minn. funded a major capital project for its state flagship university. I would expect the same for any state.

Comparing UCF to Minn. onfield performance is useless unless the competition is the same.

If that is a correct statement then would it not be the choice of each individual resident of the state to decide which university to send their taxed money to ?