(09-07-2017 09:27 AM)Gilesfan Wrote: Not giving credit to the AD for football is odd, even if you think people below him are attributing to the success. The CEO should always be judged by what their employees do. Hiring/keeping good people is a positive.
Simple. He hired the coaches for the sports that I blamed him for. He did not hire the coach for Football, nor did he hire Bruce Stewart. If anything, he has made it harder for the football program to grow with his obsession with "the streak" and his participation in the slow uber conservative approach to improving facilities.
You can't really blame hime for the facilities. Kind of hard to justify a 35-40k stadium when attendence is getting tougher each game and all but one game every year will be FCS, someone like UMass, F_U, and UTSA. Frankly, playing JMU, W&M, and Richmond would have demanded a bigger stadium, but you can't spend that kind of money for a few future games against VT.
There is a wide chasm between 22k and 35-40K. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. 26-28K in phase 1 seems reasonable to me.
(09-07-2017 09:27 AM)Gilesfan Wrote: The destruction of our basketball team is a bit of hyperbole. Yes, we do all want better for both basketball teams.
Not giving credit to the AD for football is odd, even if you think people below him are attributing to the success. The CEO should always be judged by what their employees do. Hiring/keeping good people is a positive.
Jarrett, not Selig, was responsible for football, the ensuing money spigot, and Bobby Wilder. Selig's legacy, if he leaves now, will be the CUSA move and the Jeff Jones hire and the results so far are debatable and long term not set in stone as the future of CUSA and its relationship with the P5 are murky and we may find ourselves overleveraged if we hit any more bumps in the road. Long-term football could well turn out fine, but I'm not confident it will. Basketball he done damage to, IMO.
Jarrett can be responsible for football, but Selig took it to another level and increased pay for Wilder (and his assistants) to keep them around by raising money.
This is an important season basketball wise. You could blame him for holding on to Taylor as long as he did and the hole we had to dig out.
(09-07-2017 09:27 AM)Gilesfan Wrote: The destruction of our basketball team is a bit of hyperbole. Yes, we do all want better for both basketball teams.
Not giving credit to the AD for football is odd, even if you think people below him are attributing to the success. The CEO should always be judged by what their employees do. Hiring/keeping good people is a positive.
Jarrett, not Selig, was responsible for football, the ensuing money spigot, and Bobby Wilder. Selig's legacy, if he leaves now, will be the CUSA move and the Jeff Jones hire and the results so far are debatable and long term not set in stone as the future of CUSA and its relationship with the P5 are murky and we may find ourselves overleveraged if we hit any more bumps in the road. Long-term football could well turn out fine, but I'm not confident it will. Basketball he done damage to, IMO.
Jarrett can be responsible for football, but Selig took it to another level and increased pay for Wilder (and his assistants) to keep them around by raising money.
This is an important season basketball wise. You could blame him for holding on to Taylor as long as he did and the hole we had to dig out.
...and for hiring JJ.
I have no issues with the hiring up to this point. Certainly dont want to rehash it for the 50th time, but it wasnt a slum dunk hire, but we've win a lot of games (think 2nd in win% at ODU). Now that hes has had a recruiting cycle, its time to take it to next level. If he cant do that, it will be viewed as a questionable hire.
(09-07-2017 09:27 AM)Gilesfan Wrote: Not giving credit to the AD for football is odd, even if you think people below him are attributing to the success. The CEO should always be judged by what their employees do. Hiring/keeping good people is a positive.
Simple. He hired the coaches for the sports that I blamed him for. He did not hire the coach for Football, nor did he hire Bruce Stewart. If anything, he has made it harder for the football program to grow with his obsession with "the streak" and his participation in the slow uber conservative approach to improving facilities.
You can't really blame hime for the facilities. Kind of hard to justify a 35-40k stadium when attendence is getting tougher each game and all but one game every year will be FCS, someone like UMass, F_U, and UTSA. Frankly, playing JMU, W&M, and Richmond would have demanded a bigger stadium, but you can't spend that kind of money for a few future games against VT.
There is a wide chasm between 22k and 35-40K. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. 26-28K in phase 1 seems reasonable to me.
But you have nothing to support your numbers unlike the school administration that has had professionals measure demand, anticipate future demand, and consider costs.
We'd all love a huge, rocking stadium but if its not feasible, it shouldnt be built.
(09-07-2017 09:27 AM)Gilesfan Wrote: Not giving credit to the AD for football is odd, even if you think people below him are attributing to the success. The CEO should always be judged by what their employees do. Hiring/keeping good people is a positive.
Simple. He hired the coaches for the sports that I blamed him for. He did not hire the coach for Football, nor did he hire Bruce Stewart. If anything, he has made it harder for the football program to grow with his obsession with "the streak" and his participation in the slow uber conservative approach to improving facilities.
You can't really blame hime for the facilities. Kind of hard to justify a 35-40k stadium when attendence is getting tougher each game and all but one game every year will be FCS, someone like UMass, F_U, and UTSA. Frankly, playing JMU, W&M, and Richmond would have demanded a bigger stadium, but you can't spend that kind of money for a few future games against VT.
There is a wide chasm between 22k and 35-40K. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. 26-28K in phase 1 seems reasonable to me.
But you have nothing to support your numbers unlike the school administration that has had professionals measure demand, anticipate future demand, and consider costs.
We'd all love a huge, rocking stadium but if its not feasible, it shouldnt be built.
I think I have math on my side. If we are sold out every game, and we don't add any seats, we don't have a chance to grow the fan base. I also know that there are people who ARE in the know as to the details of the "professional study" who were surprised and disappointed at the final decision.
You may THINK you know what the study determined, but you do not know how much the decision makers at ODU affected the direction of that study, and ultimately the final conclusion.
It would be naive to think that ODU just sat back and twiddled their thumbs waiting to see what would happen while Populous went about conducting a completely objective study that was in no way shaped by the preconceived ideas of the ODU admin.
(09-07-2017 10:23 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: Simple. He hired the coaches for the sports that I blamed him for. He did not hire the coach for Football, nor did he hire Bruce Stewart. If anything, he has made it harder for the football program to grow with his obsession with "the streak" and his participation in the slow uber conservative approach to improving facilities.
You can't really blame hime for the facilities. Kind of hard to justify a 35-40k stadium when attendence is getting tougher each game and all but one game every year will be FCS, someone like UMass, F_U, and UTSA. Frankly, playing JMU, W&M, and Richmond would have demanded a bigger stadium, but you can't spend that kind of money for a few future games against VT.
There is a wide chasm between 22k and 35-40K. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. 26-28K in phase 1 seems reasonable to me.
But you have nothing to support your numbers unlike the school administration that has had professionals measure demand, anticipate future demand, and consider costs.
We'd all love a huge, rocking stadium but if its not feasible, it shouldnt be built.
I think I have math on my side. If we are sold out every game, and we don't add any seats, we don't have a chance to grow the fan base. I also know that there are people who ARE in the know as to the details of the "professional study" who were surprised and disappointed at the final decision.
You may THINK you know what the study determined, but you do not know how much the decision makers at ODU affected the direction of that study, and ultimately the final conclusion.
It would be naive to think that ODU just sat back and twiddled their thumbs waiting to see what would happen while Populous went about conducting a completely objective study that was in no way shaped by the preconceived ideas of the ODU admin.
The study was not based off preconceived ideas. ODU had input on certain aspects like soil conditions (cost to cure), cost of acquiring other sites, etc.
The people that are going to benefit the most from a small, but nice stadium with lots of amenities are the same ones that want to keep the sell out streak alive for as long as possible. These are the big $ donors and are Admin are catering to them b/c they have to. These are probably the same people that buy a whole row of seats at mid court at the Ted and don't let anyone sit there and don't want people standing up during the games.
(09-07-2017 03:20 PM)ODU_NYG Wrote: The people that are going to benefit the most from a small, but nice stadium with lots of amenities are the same ones that want to keep the sell out streak alive for as long as possible. These are the big $ donors and are Admin are catering to them b/c they have to. These are probably the same people that buy a whole row of seats at mid court at the Ted and don't let anyone sit there and don't want people standing up during the games.
(09-07-2017 04:03 PM)Gilesfan Wrote: What are the benefits of a smaller stadium to big $ donors?
The sell out streak is important to them. As well as their comfort and access to the nicer perks of the stadium.
How would adding more cheap seats lower their access to the high dollar perks?
I don't know. I'm not one of them. All I know is that the sell out streak is important to a high % of them and our Admin listens to them and takes their opinions seriously (as opposed to ours). A 22k seat stadium will sell out easier than a 30k seat stadium.
I don't understand the obsession with the sellout streak. Even with CUSA's crummy TV deal, it'll be pretty obvious to a lot of people that the "sellout" game isn't a butt-in-every-seat game, and so the sellout claim will be ridiculed (think the New York Knicks who played in front of ever-decreasing crowds a few years back while still trumpeting, legitimately, their sellout streak (the seats *were* sold, after all).
Other than a feel-good and some space in the annual reports, does a sellout streak actually generate something tangible for the school and program?
(09-07-2017 04:35 PM)Cyniclone Wrote: I don't understand the obsession with the sellout streak. Even with CUSA's crummy TV deal, it'll be pretty obvious to a lot of people that the "sellout" game isn't a butt-in-every-seat game, and so the sellout claim will be ridiculed (think the New York Knicks who played in front of ever-decreasing crowds a few years back while still trumpeting, legitimately, their sellout streak (the seats *were* sold, after all).
Other than a feel-good and some space in the annual reports, does a sellout streak actually generate something tangible for the school and program?
(09-07-2017 04:03 PM)Gilesfan Wrote: What are the benefits of a smaller stadium to big $ donors?
The sell out streak is important to them. As well as their comfort and access to the nicer perks of the stadium.
How would adding more cheap seats lower their access to the high dollar perks?
I don't know. I'm not one of them. All I know is that the sell out streak is important to a high % of them and our Admin listens to them and takes their opinions seriously (as opposed to ours). A 22k seat stadium will sell out easier than a 30k seat stadium.
What do you base this on? How have you found out this information?
(09-07-2017 04:03 PM)Gilesfan Wrote: What are the benefits of a smaller stadium to big $ donors?
The sell out streak is important to them. As well as their comfort and access to the nicer perks of the stadium.
How would adding more cheap seats lower their access to the high dollar perks?
I don't know. I'm not one of them. All I know is that the sell out streak is important to a high % of them and our Admin listens to them and takes their opinions seriously (as opposed to ours). A 22k seat stadium will sell out easier than a 30k seat stadium.
What do you base this on? How have you found out this information?
I know someone with access and has heard this several times from various donors and ODU admin. Preserving the sell out steak is very important to a lot of people who's opinions are taken into consideration. People that give lots of money like the sell out streak. That's all I know.
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2017 04:59 PM by ODU_NYG.)
(09-07-2017 04:35 PM)Cyniclone Wrote: I don't understand the obsession with the sellout streak. Even with CUSA's crummy TV deal, it'll be pretty obvious to a lot of people that the "sellout" game isn't a butt-in-every-seat game, and so the sellout claim will be ridiculed (think the New York Knicks who played in front of ever-decreasing crowds a few years back while still trumpeting, legitimately, their sellout streak (the seats *were* sold, after all).
Other than a feel-good and some space in the annual reports, does a sellout streak actually generate something tangible for the school and program?
I think its one of those things that we don't know how valuable it is until we don't have it anymore. I agree with you though. When I watch games on TV and the announcers say "sell out" and there are obviously tons of empty seats, it doesn't really mean much to me.
Personally, the sell out streak doesn't mean much to me. I would still donate and be a season ticket holder regardless: seats to all games guaranteed and in my hands, the seats I want and not whatever I can manage, tailgating in "my" spot and lot, etc. This is just me, but it wouldn't affect my actions one bit.
