(11-10-2017 11:41 AM)knightastic Wrote:  I'm not saying one strategy is better but it's interesting the difference between UCF and USF when it comes to facilities and the stadium situation.

USF seems to be using the Miami model while UCF is going the FSU route(erector set OCS that is gradually improved)

To be fair, you guys were forced to build yours because of the Citrus Bowl renovations.

But I think it also points to a philosophical difference between UCF and USF in terms of the athletic programs. UCF has always been willing to spend whatever is necessary to advance the football program, and been willing to spend/invest with the faith that the funds would be found to get the job done. USF has instead been unwilling to show spend resources until they've already secured the funding. There are many days when I wish our administration weren't so conservative.

USFFan

(11-10-2017 12:10 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(11-10-2017 11:41 AM)knightastic Wrote:  I'm not saying one strategy is better but it's interesting the difference between UCF and USF when it comes to facilities and the stadium situation.

USF seems to be using the Miami model while UCF is going the FSU route(erector set OCS that is gradually improved)

To be fair, you guys were forced to build yours because of the Citrus Bowl renovations.

But I think it also points to a philosophical difference between UCF and USF in terms of the athletic programs. UCF has always been willing to spend whatever is necessary to advance the football program, and been willing to spend/invest with the faith that the funds would be found to get the job done. USF has instead been unwilling to show spend resources until they've already secured the funding. There are many days when I wish our administration weren't so conservative.

USFFan

As I see many outsized Football stadiums today (Pro and College)...I wonder if being conservative isn't the right play under current realities?

An indoor practice facility is actually very functional to have for a University.

(11-10-2017 12:23 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(11-10-2017 12:10 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(11-10-2017 11:41 AM)knightastic Wrote:  I'm not saying one strategy is better but it's interesting the difference between UCF and USF when it comes to facilities and the stadium situation.

USF seems to be using the Miami model while UCF is going the FSU route(erector set OCS that is gradually improved)

To be fair, you guys were forced to build yours because of the Citrus Bowl renovations.

But I think it also points to a philosophical difference between UCF and USF in terms of the athletic programs. UCF has always been willing to spend whatever is necessary to advance the football program, and been willing to spend/invest with the faith that the funds would be found to get the job done. USF has instead been unwilling to show spend resources until they've already secured the funding. There are many days when I wish our administration weren't so conservative.

USFFan

As I see many outsized Football stadiums today (Pro and College)...I wonder if being conservative isn't the right play under current realities?

An indoor practice facility is actually very functional to have for a University.

Actually I have also been thinking of that lately the trend of college football revolving around tv has hurt every school’s attendance and the younger fans are looking at having more than just a stadium to watch games so I’m thinking in the future smaller stadiums with more perks to accommodate fans might be the way to go.
But yes at this time our coaches have spoken about this type of football building being a priority for them over an OCS

The naysayers will be disappointed if they believe that with this announcement USF will now need to raise the entire $40-million.

The Times article alludes to what has been quietly been discussed since even before we hired Strong. Supposedly, the facility was a big reason why Strong agreed to come to USF. This will happen sooner than later and the public phase of this project means that significant dollars have been secured/identified.

Once this project is completed the only thing lacking at USF is an OCS. All of our other facilities are comparable to Big12, ACC and other P5 conferences. The added capacity will also be a boon to other sports and allow for some much needed decompression.

The lack of an OCS will not keep USF out any future conference opportunities. USF has a plan on what it wants to do...and there has been more work done on that project than made public as well.

Yes and I have heard from more than one source that Strong reiterated that this must happen soon. We will hear more news on this very soon

(11-09-2017 07:29 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 06:04 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 05:34 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 04:41 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 04:40 PM)Underdog Wrote:  Why not use the $$ toward an OCS?

Because there is a huge difference between raising 40 million vs 200 million and reality is that for players and recruits this is a bigger attraction than an OCS.

I'd put this as the more immediate need... Internet blathering aside, we HAVE a top notch stadium to play in... we don't have a practice facility... which is pretty much a MUST in Florida...

If the B12 only wants one school between UCF and USF, a $40 million football practice facility will not give it the nod over UCF in my opinion. With time winding down on this conference, I think USF should consider what would put it in the best position when (not if) more realignment occurs….

1) First off, if you believe that meaningful football realignment is happening before 2025, I've got some beachfront property in New Mexico I'd like to sell you. 2) But if you believe that a conference is going to pick a school based on an on-campus stadium, I think you're crazy. 3) The ACC didn't pass on Pitt because they play at Heinz Field. 4) They're not fretting about Miami playing in Hard Rock Stadium. They're not going to pass on Memphis because the Liberty Bowl is 3 miles from campus. And they're sure as hell not going to pick UCF over USF because of their rusty wok of a stadium. 5) If expansion happens (and I have my doubts), they'll pick their schools based on a number of factors, but an on campus stadium isn't going to be one of them.

6) And I know I'm in the minority, but I can't justify spending north of $200MM for a building that will get used 7 times a year. For better or worse, I'm not the one who will make that decision, but I think it's a colossal waste of money when there's a state of the art stadium across town.

USFFan

1) Where do I state a specific period of time in my post?

2) Louisville and TCU invested in their stadiums; look at where both schools are now. Please get a good grip on reality my friend….

3) The ACC was told by ESPN to take Pitt and Cuse:

“SCANDAL: ESPN Told The ACC Which Teams To Take From Big East Conference”

http://www.businessinsider.com/scandal-e...ce-2011-10

4) Comparing USF to Miami regarding football is irrational….

5) You're in absolute denial if you truly believe the dysfunctional B12—which is the conference mentioned in my previous post—will remain unchanged after its GOR expires.

6) You are entitled to express your opinion….

Someone who is involved in following recruiting said on another board that this announcement was originally scheduled for January. If the announcement was moved up, maybe that is an indication that significant behind the scenes fundraising has already happened (maybe little ahead of schedule) and now they are going into a more public fundraising campaign.

(11-10-2017 01:37 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  Someone who is involved in following recruiting said on another board that this announcement was originally scheduled for January. If the announcement was moved up, maybe that is an indication that significant behind the scenes fundraising has already happened (maybe little ahead of schedule) and now they are going into a more public fundraising campaign.

This plus as I have stated before it is a priority for Strong

(11-10-2017 01:31 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 07:29 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 06:04 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 05:34 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 04:41 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Because there is a huge difference between raising 40 million vs 200 million and reality is that for players and recruits this is a bigger attraction than an OCS.

I'd put this as the more immediate need... Internet blathering aside, we HAVE a top notch stadium to play in... we don't have a practice facility... which is pretty much a MUST in Florida...

If the B12 only wants one school between UCF and USF, a $40 million football practice facility will not give it the nod over UCF in my opinion. With time winding down on this conference, I think USF should consider what would put it in the best position when (not if) more realignment occurs….

1) First off, if you believe that meaningful football realignment is happening before 2025, I've got some beachfront property in New Mexico I'd like to sell you. 2) But if you believe that a conference is going to pick a school based on an on-campus stadium, I think you're crazy. 3) The ACC didn't pass on Pitt because they play at Heinz Field. 4) They're not fretting about Miami playing in Hard Rock Stadium. They're not going to pass on Memphis because the Liberty Bowl is 3 miles from campus. And they're sure as hell not going to pick UCF over USF because of their rusty wok of a stadium. 5) If expansion happens (and I have my doubts), they'll pick their schools based on a number of factors, but an on campus stadium isn't going to be one of them.

6) And I know I'm in the minority, but I can't justify spending north of $200MM for a building that will get used 7 times a year. For better or worse, I'm not the one who will make that decision, but I think it's a colossal waste of money when there's a state of the art stadium across town.

USFFan

1) Where do I state a specific period of time in my post?

2) Louisville and TCU invested in their stadiums; look at where both schools are now. Please get a good grip on reality my friend….

3) The ACC was told by ESPN to take Pitt and Cuse:

“SCANDAL: ESPN Told The ACC Which Teams To Take From Big East Conference”

http://www.businessinsider.com/scandal-e...ce-2011-10

4) Comparing USF to Miami regarding football is irrational….

5) You're in absolute denial if you truly believe the dysfunctional B12—which is the conference mentioned in my previous post—will remain unchanged after its GOR expires.

6) You are entitled to express your opinion….

1) You implied that not having an OOC would hinder USF's chances at being included in expansion. If those don't happen for 7+ seasons, then there's still plenty of time to build an OOC (if, in fact, that was a driver for expansion). Just as an example, UCF started construction in 2006 and it was open in 2007. So trying to play the "I didn't say when" card is silly in that light.

2) Are you suggesting that the reasons why Louisville and TCU were added to the ACC and Big XII were because of their football stadium expenditures? I think you'd be hard pressed to make a solid case for that. TCU persevered the end of the SWC, winning Conference USA and Mountain West Conference football titles regularly, managed a Fiesta Bowl bid and was on their way to a Rose Bowl win when the Big XII invited them to join. Meanwhile, Louisville had Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl wins and a couple of top 10 finishes to their credit (nevermind multiple NCAA titles in basketball) before the ACC added them (only after Maryland left), but sure - those invitations were because of renovations to on campus football stadiums.

3) As a fan of a former Big East member, you don't have to tell me about ESPN's role in breaking up the conference. But the thing is, they did it DESPITE the fact that Pitt plays in an off campus NFL stadium, which suggests that on campus stadia are not a driver in conference expansion.

4) And yet, they succeed while playing in an off campus NFL stadium. So the point still stands - on campus stadia are not required for "P5" conferences.

5) I didn't say that the Big 12 will remain unchanged. I believe that, at the very least, Oklahoma and Texas will be poached by other leagues. If I'm a betting man, I think Kansas and Texas join the B1G, while Oklahoma and Oklahoma State join the SEC. That leaves Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia, TCU, Baylor and Texas Tech to try to figure out what they're going to do. At that point, some or all of the AAC will join with some or all of the Big XII and some or all of the MWC to make 1-2 leagues that will be trying to make the case for being included with the Power 4. I don't think spending $200MM will be needed for USF to be included in that group.

6) That's the great thing about opinions, we're all entitled to them. Nothing you've said has changed mine, and I doubt anything I've said has changed yours. Let's agree to see who's right in 2025.

USFFan

(11-10-2017 01:02 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Yes and I have heard from more than one source that Strong reiterated that this must happen soon. We will hear more news on this very soon

We lost Doug Marrone to the NFL partly because the school dragged their feet on the Indoor Playing Facility. These are that important to FBS coaches.

I wonder if USF could get with the MSL and create a top shelf 35-45k seat stadium on campus?

Another benefit it could host a bowl game in December.

(11-10-2017 03:21 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(11-10-2017 01:02 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Yes and I have heard from more than one source that Strong reiterated that this must happen soon. We will hear more news on this very soon

We lost Doug Marrone to the NFL partly because the school dragged their feet on the Indoor Playing Facility. These are that important to FBS coaches.

I wonder if USF could get with the MSL and create a top shelf 35-45k seat stadium on campus?

Another benefit it could host a bowl game in December.

That ship has sailed. First, with Orlando already having an MLS team and Miami having David Beckham behind them, it's already an uphill battle. But on top of that, St. Petersburg has the Rowdies, and they've already got a bid in for MLS expansion to play in either an upgraded Al Lang Field (where the Cards and Mets used to do spring training) or the Trop if/when the Rays get their new stadium in Tampa.

Speaking of which:

https://www.draysbay.com/2017/11/9/16628...ition-ybor

If this happens, I think the outlook for an OOC at USF goes down. Why the hell would we need a THIRD 40,000 seat stadium in this city?

USFFan

(11-10-2017 12:10 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(11-10-2017 11:41 AM)knightastic Wrote:  I'm not saying one strategy is better but it's interesting the difference between UCF and USF when it comes to facilities and the stadium situation.

USF seems to be using the Miami model while UCF is going the FSU route(erector set OCS that is gradually improved)

To be fair, you guys were forced to build yours because of the Citrus Bowl renovations.

But I think it also points to a philosophical difference between UCF and USF in terms of the athletic programs. UCF has always been willing to spend whatever is necessary to advance the football program, and been willing to spend/invest with the faith that the funds would be found to get the job done. USF has instead been unwilling to show spend resources until they've already secured the funding. There are many days when I wish our administration weren't so conservative.

USFFan

I question the necessity of a $40 million dollar facility. Seems a bit over the top much like the construction of a $200 million dollar OCS would be. Why is such opulence necessary? I understand a team like Clemson with money to burn throwing it around but USF is not on the same financial level. Miami's indoor facility under construction is $35 million. I am not saying build an erector set stadium, but why so much?

Ours was only $20 million, and we had the common sense to build it AFTER the OCS.

Ucf will have a lazy river before this gets built. Who is usf gonna get $40mil from lol. I could see a dumbed down version of this built for about 1/3 the price or less but $40mil is a long way away.

(11-10-2017 03:43 PM)StatueKnight Wrote:  

(11-10-2017 12:10 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(11-10-2017 11:41 AM)knightastic Wrote:  I'm not saying one strategy is better but it's interesting the difference between UCF and USF when it comes to facilities and the stadium situation.

USF seems to be using the Miami model while UCF is going the FSU route(erector set OCS that is gradually improved)

To be fair, you guys were forced to build yours because of the Citrus Bowl renovations.

But I think it also points to a philosophical difference between UCF and USF in terms of the athletic programs. UCF has always been willing to spend whatever is necessary to advance the football program, and been willing to spend/invest with the faith that the funds would be found to get the job done. USF has instead been unwilling to show spend resources until they've already secured the funding. There are many days when I wish our administration weren't so conservative.

USFFan

I question the necessity of a $40 million dollar facility. Seems a bit over the top much like the construction of a $200 million dollar OCS would be. Why is such opulence necessary? I understand a team like Clemson with money to burn throwing it around but USF is not on the same financial level. Miami's indoor facility under construction is $35 million. I am not saying build an erector set stadium, but why so much?

Because it is NOT just an IPF it’s an entire football facility that would house, coaches offices, locker rooms, athletes lounge, sports medicine training rooms and weight training facility. All of these are currently housed in the Selmon Center so after the move it would be more room for the Olympic sports there.
This is why I said more likely to see it built in faces the IPF first and then the building that will house all the rest afterwards

(11-10-2017 03:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Ours was only $20 million, and we had the common sense to build it AFTER the OCS.

Because ours when finished won’t be just an OCS.

(11-10-2017 04:01 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Ucf will have a lazy river before this gets built. Who is usf gonna get $40mil from lol. I could see a dumbed down version of this built for about 1/3 the price or less but $40mil is a long way away.

Ok good for you guys and your lazy river I swear you guys see anything announced by USF and right away need to try to put it down, just look at the other thread started by you know who. Insecurity at its best

(11-10-2017 04:09 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(11-10-2017 04:01 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Ucf will have a lazy river before this gets built. Who is usf gonna get $40mil from lol. I could see a dumbed down version of this built for about 1/3 the price or less but $40mil is a long way away.

Ok good for you guys and your lazy river I swear you guys see anything announced by USF and right away need to try to put it down, just look at the other thread started by you know who. Insecurity at its best

It's an awesome drawing for sure just not realistic for usf budget.

(11-10-2017 04:10 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(11-10-2017 04:09 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(11-10-2017 04:01 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Ucf will have a lazy river before this gets built. Who is usf gonna get $40mil from lol. I could see a dumbed down version of this built for about 1/3 the price or less but $40mil is a long way away.

Ok good for you guys and your lazy river I swear you guys see anything announced by USF and right away need to try to put it down, just look at the other thread started by you know who. Insecurity at its best

It's an awesome drawing for sure just not realistic for usf budget.

ok you know everything at USF

(11-10-2017 01:52 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(11-10-2017 01:37 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  Someone who is involved in following recruiting said on another board that this announcement was originally scheduled for January. If the announcement was moved up, maybe that is an indication that significant behind the scenes fundraising has already happened (maybe little ahead of schedule) and now they are going into a more public fundraising campaign.

This plus as I have stated before it is a priority for Strong

Smart...the coach hiring frenzy will start next week. USF is getting out in front of it as much as they can.