(09-12-2023 04:06 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 04:03 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 03:57 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 03:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  David Rudd, Tom Bowen & later Laird Veatch & Bill Hardgrave all should have been making the case to the state for an OCS & P5 inclusion for the past decade; & had they, we would not be mired in this very predictable pork barrel dole out.

Yes, we need an OCS, but it's not up to the state to pay for it. The school has to pay for it. USF just completed the funding for their $340M OCS, and it's $140M in cash & gifts and $200M via a bond offering. U of Houston helped pay for their OCS with $45 per semester student fee.

And Dr. Rudd did all he could do. Maybe he should have pushed for and OCS harder. But Dr. Rudd kept Bowen away from expansion and facilities. Dr. Rudd thought Bowen was a clown. Bowen started at a $400K salary, and still was making $400K 7 years later. There was a reason Bowen was interviewing for jobs every year.

Yet the state is funding the Liberty Bowl renovation.

Yes. The state has NEVER been shown an OCS proposal to reject.

The last 3 school presidents have been told that the funding for that will never happen. You want us to submit a proposal anyways and the negative PR that will happen when it is formally rejected?

(09-13-2023 09:00 AM)Tigx Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 08:51 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:56 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 08:42 PM)pkptigers07 Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 03:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  David Rudd, Tom Bowen & later Laird Veatch & Bill Hardgrave all should have been making the case to the state for an OCS & P5 inclusion for the past decade; & had they, we would not be mired in this very predictable pork barrel dole out.

This is absolutely correct. The economics of a stadium on campus work with $150-200 million in cash from the state.

I think everyone on this board would agree that when any stadium project is gifted 200 million dollars, the economics work much better.

The state’s investment in these stadium “upgrades” was highlighted & justified by the TN’s speaker of the house because it would help elevate the UofM into a P5 conference… thus “picking winners & losers”. The fact the school couldn’t or wouldn’t make this case a decade ago is why we are where we are.

The state’s investment in this state university would have paid for itself in 5-10 years.

Sometimes I don't know if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing.

If UT and MTSU pay for their stadiums upgrades, why should the state pay for our stadium? Depending on the state to bail our university out is a losing strategy, imo.

The same state that is funding the Liberty Bowl expansion, largely because it will help the school gain admittance into a P5 conference would have also contributed to an OCS, if aggressively lobbied. The UofM is the only state school w/o a significant sport playing oncampus & the only P5 hopeful playing both basketball & football off campus. The fact is… the school has never truly pursued it.

(09-12-2023 03:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  David Rudd, Tom Bowen & later Laird Veatch & Bill Hardgrave all should have been making the case to the state for an OCS & P5 inclusion for the past decade; & had they, we would not be mired in this very predictable pork barrel dole out.

(09-13-2023 09:50 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:00 AM)Tigx Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 08:51 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:56 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 08:42 PM)pkptigers07 Wrote:  This is absolutely correct. The economics of a stadium on campus work with $150-200 million in cash from the state.

I think everyone on this board would agree that when any stadium project is gifted 200 million dollars, the economics work much better.

The state’s investment in these stadium “upgrades” was highlighted & justified by the TN’s speaker of the house because it would help elevate the UofM into a P5 conference… thus “picking winners & losers”. The fact the school couldn’t or wouldn’t make this case a decade ago is why we are where we are.

The state’s investment in this state university would have paid for itself in 5-10 years.

Sometimes I don't know if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing.

If UT and MTSU pay for their stadiums upgrades, why should the state pay for our stadium? Depending on the state to bail our university out is a losing strategy, imo.

The same state that is funding the Liberty Bowl expansion, largely because it will help the school gain admittance into a P5 conference would have also contributed to an OCS, if aggressively lobbied. The UofM is the only state school w/o a significant sport playing oncampus & the only P5 hopeful playing both basketball & football off campus. The fact is… the school has never truly pursued it.

I'm ready to stop the debate, but I still sometimes can't figure out what your point is.

This state historically doesn't pay for its universities to build or upgrade stadiums. We are a wealthy state, and thus able to help upgrade municipally owned stadiums. You act like this is a minor technicality, but it's not.

I would love to have an OCS, and don't think we ever get into a P4 without one. And we might not get an invite even with an OCS. But I don't expect the state of Tennessee to pay for it. The pursuit should be to figure out how to pay for it, like our peers have recently done.

(09-13-2023 09:50 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:00 AM)Tigx Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 08:51 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:56 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 08:42 PM)pkptigers07 Wrote:  This is absolutely correct. The economics of a stadium on campus work with $150-200 million in cash from the state.

I think everyone on this board would agree that when any stadium project is gifted 200 million dollars, the economics work much better.

The state’s investment in these stadium “upgrades” was highlighted & justified by the TN’s speaker of the house because it would help elevate the UofM into a P5 conference… thus “picking winners & losers”. The fact the school couldn’t or wouldn’t make this case a decade ago is why we are where we are.

The state’s investment in this state university would have paid for itself in 5-10 years.

Sometimes I don't know if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing.

If UT and MTSU pay for their stadiums upgrades, why should the state pay for our stadium? Depending on the state to bail our university out is a losing strategy, imo.

The same state that is funding the Liberty Bowl expansion, largely because it will help the school gain admittance into a P5 conference would have also contributed to an OCS, if aggressively lobbied. The UofM is the only state school w/o a significant sport playing oncampus & the only P5 hopeful playing both basketball & football off campus. The fact is… the school has never truly pursued it.

No - it would not have. The $$ went to facilities that are for the city/local government-owned facilities - i.e., the Titans stadium, the Grizzlies/FEF, and the Liberty Bowl.

An OCS would be solely owned by a state-owned university. UT/Neyland, Vandy's stadium, and UT-Chatt would not qualify for any of these funds.

(09-13-2023 12:27 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:50 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:00 AM)Tigx Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 08:51 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:56 PM)Tigx Wrote:  I think everyone on this board would agree that when any stadium project is gifted 200 million dollars, the economics work much better.

The state’s investment in these stadium “upgrades” was highlighted & justified by the TN’s speaker of the house because it would help elevate the UofM into a P5 conference… thus “picking winners & losers”. The fact the school couldn’t or wouldn’t make this case a decade ago is why we are where we are.

The state’s investment in this state university would have paid for itself in 5-10 years.

Sometimes I don't know if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing.

If UT and MTSU pay for their stadiums upgrades, why should the state pay for our stadium? Depending on the state to bail our university out is a losing strategy, imo.

The same state that is funding the Liberty Bowl expansion, largely because it will help the school gain admittance into a P5 conference would have also contributed to an OCS, if aggressively lobbied. The UofM is the only state school w/o a significant sport playing oncampus & the only P5 hopeful playing both basketball & football off campus. The fact is… the school has never truly pursued it.

No - it would not have. The $$ went to facilities that are for the city/local government-owned facilities - i.e., the Titans stadium, the Grizzlies/FEF, and the Liberty Bowl.

An OCS would be solely owned by a state-owned university. UT/Neyland, Vandy's stadium, and UT-Chatt would not qualify for any of these funds.

Had the school been lobbying for the funds for an OCS, then they would have been in position to ask for them. They didn’t & they weren’t.

The city was appropriated the money solely as a tit-for-tat with Nashville; but the legislature wouldn’t have given a damn whether that money went for an OCS or for yet another Liberty Bowl make over… all they cared about was the appearance of an equitable investment in each city.

The bottom line is the university leadership does not want an OCS, yet they also don’t want to appear as if they oppose it. Now, they can clutch their collective pearls & hope the city doesn’t allocate the vast majority of those funds to the Forum.

(09-13-2023 01:29 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 12:27 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:50 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:00 AM)Tigx Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 08:51 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The state’s investment in these stadium “upgrades” was highlighted & justified by the TN’s speaker of the house because it would help elevate the UofM into a P5 conference… thus “picking winners & losers”. The fact the school couldn’t or wouldn’t make this case a decade ago is why we are where we are.

The state’s investment in this state university would have paid for itself in 5-10 years.

Sometimes I don't know if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing.

If UT and MTSU pay for their stadiums upgrades, why should the state pay for our stadium? Depending on the state to bail our university out is a losing strategy, imo.

The same state that is funding the Liberty Bowl expansion, largely because it will help the school gain admittance into a P5 conference would have also contributed to an OCS, if aggressively lobbied. The UofM is the only state school w/o a significant sport playing oncampus & the only P5 hopeful playing both basketball & football off campus. The fact is… the school has never truly pursued it.

No - it would not have. The $$ went to facilities that are for the city/local government-owned facilities - i.e., the Titans stadium, the Grizzlies/FEF, and the Liberty Bowl.

An OCS would be solely owned by a state-owned university. UT/Neyland, Vandy's stadium, and UT-Chatt would not qualify for any of these funds.

Had the school been lobbying for the funds for an OCS, then they would have been in position to ask for them. They didn’t & they weren’t.

The city was appropriated the money solely as a tit-for-tat with Nashville; but the legislature wouldn’t have given a damn whether that money went for an OCS or for yet another Liberty Bowl make over… all they cared about was the appearance of an equitable investment in each city.

Re the bolded, I just think that you couldn't be more wrong. Like 100% wrong.

If the legislature had given he money to the U of M for an OCS, then every other public university in the state would rightly be demanding money for their own facilities. The legislature was simply never going to open up that can of worms.

(09-13-2023 01:29 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 12:27 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:50 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:00 AM)Tigx Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 08:51 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The state’s investment in these stadium “upgrades” was highlighted & justified by the TN’s speaker of the house because it would help elevate the UofM into a P5 conference… thus “picking winners & losers”. The fact the school couldn’t or wouldn’t make this case a decade ago is why we are where we are.

The state’s investment in this state university would have paid for itself in 5-10 years.

Sometimes I don't know if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing.

If UT and MTSU pay for their stadiums upgrades, why should the state pay for our stadium? Depending on the state to bail our university out is a losing strategy, imo.

The same state that is funding the Liberty Bowl expansion, largely because it will help the school gain admittance into a P5 conference would have also contributed to an OCS, if aggressively lobbied. The UofM is the only state school w/o a significant sport playing oncampus & the only P5 hopeful playing both basketball & football off campus. The fact is… the school has never truly pursued it.

No - it would not have. The $$ went to facilities that are for the city/local government-owned facilities - i.e., the Titans stadium, the Grizzlies/FEF, and the Liberty Bowl.

An OCS would be solely owned by a state-owned university. UT/Neyland, Vandy's stadium, and UT-Chatt would not qualify for any of these funds.

Had the school been lobbying for the funds for an OCS, then they would have been in position to ask for them. They didn’t & they weren’t.

The city was appropriated the money solely as a tit-for-tat with Nashville; but the legislature wouldn’t have given a damn whether that money went for an OCS or for yet another Liberty Bowl make over… all they cared about was the appearance of an equitable investment in each city.

The bottom line is the university leadership does not want an OCS, yet they also don’t want to appear as if they oppose it. Now, they can clutch their collective pearls & hope the city doesn’t allocate the vast majority of those funds to the Forum.

I believe it was mentioned here that the school asked for OCS funding and the state said no.

(09-13-2023 01:37 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:29 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 12:27 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:50 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:00 AM)Tigx Wrote:  Sometimes I don't know if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing.

If UT and MTSU pay for their stadiums upgrades, why should the state pay for our stadium? Depending on the state to bail our university out is a losing strategy, imo.

The same state that is funding the Liberty Bowl expansion, largely because it will help the school gain admittance into a P5 conference would have also contributed to an OCS, if aggressively lobbied. The UofM is the only state school w/o a significant sport playing oncampus & the only P5 hopeful playing both basketball & football off campus. The fact is… the school has never truly pursued it.

No - it would not have. The $$ went to facilities that are for the city/local government-owned facilities - i.e., the Titans stadium, the Grizzlies/FEF, and the Liberty Bowl.

An OCS would be solely owned by a state-owned university. UT/Neyland, Vandy's stadium, and UT-Chatt would not qualify for any of these funds.

Had the school been lobbying for the funds for an OCS, then they would have been in position to ask for them. They didn’t & they weren’t.

The city was appropriated the money solely as a tit-for-tat with Nashville; but the legislature wouldn’t have given a damn whether that money went for an OCS or for yet another Liberty Bowl make over… all they cared about was the appearance of an equitable investment in each city.

The bottom line is the university leadership does not want an OCS, yet they also don’t want to appear as if they oppose it. Now, they can clutch their collective pearls & hope the city doesn’t allocate the vast majority of those funds to the Forum.

I believe it was mentioned here that the school asked for OCS funding and the state said no.

I have no doubt the university made that statement.

(09-13-2023 01:29 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 12:27 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:50 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:00 AM)Tigx Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 08:51 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The state’s investment in these stadium “upgrades” was highlighted & justified by the TN’s speaker of the house because it would help elevate the UofM into a P5 conference… thus “picking winners & losers”. The fact the school couldn’t or wouldn’t make this case a decade ago is why we are where we are.

The state’s investment in this state university would have paid for itself in 5-10 years.

Sometimes I don't know if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing.

If UT and MTSU pay for their stadiums upgrades, why should the state pay for our stadium? Depending on the state to bail our university out is a losing strategy, imo.

The same state that is funding the Liberty Bowl expansion, largely because it will help the school gain admittance into a P5 conference would have also contributed to an OCS, if aggressively lobbied. The UofM is the only state school w/o a significant sport playing oncampus & the only P5 hopeful playing both basketball & football off campus. The fact is… the school has never truly pursued it.

No - it would not have. The $$ went to facilities that are for the city/local government-owned facilities - i.e., the Titans stadium, the Grizzlies/FEF, and the Liberty Bowl.

An OCS would be solely owned by a state-owned university. UT/Neyland, Vandy's stadium, and UT-Chatt would not qualify for any of these funds.

Had the school been lobbying for the funds for an OCS, then they would have been in position to ask for them. They didn’t & they weren’t.

The city was appropriated the money solely as a tit-for-tat with Nashville; but the legislature wouldn’t have given a damn whether that money went for an OCS or for yet another Liberty Bowl make over… all they cared about was the appearance of an equitable investment in each city.

Again, false. The funding has to be spent certain ways -
Even Nashville is getting ownership BACK of the Titans' stadium with this deal:

"The deal returns control of 66 acres, including the current site of Nissan Stadium, to Nashville."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/3629...um-funding

All of the facilities receiving funding from this are owned by the cities they are in - they are NOT owned by universities. Do you not think that if this were available to universities UT wouldn't have been all over it since they are currently renovating Neyland?

Legislation can read however the drafters of that legislation want it to read; & both the city & the university received exactly what they requested.

(09-13-2023 01:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:29 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 12:27 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:50 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:00 AM)Tigx Wrote:  Sometimes I don't know if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing.

If UT and MTSU pay for their stadiums upgrades, why should the state pay for our stadium? Depending on the state to bail our university out is a losing strategy, imo.

The same state that is funding the Liberty Bowl expansion, largely because it will help the school gain admittance into a P5 conference would have also contributed to an OCS, if aggressively lobbied. The UofM is the only state school w/o a significant sport playing oncampus & the only P5 hopeful playing both basketball & football off campus. The fact is… the school has never truly pursued it.

No - it would not have. The $$ went to facilities that are for the city/local government-owned facilities - i.e., the Titans stadium, the Grizzlies/FEF, and the Liberty Bowl.

An OCS would be solely owned by a state-owned university. UT/Neyland, Vandy's stadium, and UT-Chatt would not qualify for any of these funds.

Had the school been lobbying for the funds for an OCS, then they would have been in position to ask for them. They didn’t & they weren’t.

The city was appropriated the money solely as a tit-for-tat with Nashville; but the legislature wouldn’t have given a damn whether that money went for an OCS or for yet another Liberty Bowl make over… all they cared about was the appearance of an equitable investment in each city.

Again, false. The funding has to be spent certain ways -
Even Nashville is getting ownership BACK of the Titans' stadium with this deal:

"The deal returns control of 66 acres, including the current site of Nissan Stadium, to Nashville."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/3629...um-funding

All of the facilities receiving funding from this are owned by the cities they are in - they are NOT owned by universities. Do you not think that if this were available to universities UT wouldn't have been all over it since they are currently renovating Neyland?

The State has paid for university facilities before. Thompson Boling Arena was partially funded by the state for example. It is fully owned and operated by UT however. From the Arena's website:

The funding package for the facility provided that UT pay $13 million; Knox County, $10 million (through an increase in the amusement tax); and the State of Tennessee, $7 million.

(09-13-2023 09:29 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:29 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 12:27 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:50 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The same state that is funding the Liberty Bowl expansion, largely because it will help the school gain admittance into a P5 conference would have also contributed to an OCS, if aggressively lobbied. The UofM is the only state school w/o a significant sport playing oncampus & the only P5 hopeful playing both basketball & football off campus. The fact is… the school has never truly pursued it.

No - it would not have. The $$ went to facilities that are for the city/local government-owned facilities - i.e., the Titans stadium, the Grizzlies/FEF, and the Liberty Bowl.

An OCS would be solely owned by a state-owned university. UT/Neyland, Vandy's stadium, and UT-Chatt would not qualify for any of these funds.

Had the school been lobbying for the funds for an OCS, then they would have been in position to ask for them. They didn’t & they weren’t.

The city was appropriated the money solely as a tit-for-tat with Nashville; but the legislature wouldn’t have given a damn whether that money went for an OCS or for yet another Liberty Bowl make over… all they cared about was the appearance of an equitable investment in each city.

Again, false. The funding has to be spent certain ways -
Even Nashville is getting ownership BACK of the Titans' stadium with this deal:

"The deal returns control of 66 acres, including the current site of Nissan Stadium, to Nashville."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/3629...um-funding

All of the facilities receiving funding from this are owned by the cities they are in - they are NOT owned by universities. Do you not think that if this were available to universities UT wouldn't have been all over it since they are currently renovating Neyland?

The State has paid for university facilities before. Thompson Boling Arena was partially funded by the state for example. It is fully owned and operated by UT however. From the Arena's website:

The funding package for the facility provided that UT pay $13 million; Knox County, $10 million (through an increase in the amusement tax); and the State of Tennessee, $7 million.

Correct, but as someone else said, this money in particular is a part of an infrastructure package that is earmarked for publicly owned locations.

Of course any college is welcome to ask for whatever funds from the state any time they like, but UofM (or UT, or MTSU, etc.) weren't going to get any of these particular funds.

So does anyone think Strickland is just passing the buck to the next mayor ?

(09-14-2023 11:46 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  So does anyone think Strickland is just passing the buck to the next mayor ?

yes

(09-14-2023 11:46 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  So does anyone think Strickland is just passing the buck to the next mayor ?

No, I think the opposite. It will be his final act as mayor, a legacy achievement.

I'm in the this isn't a big deal camp. It will get resolved. Calkins wrote a Tigers vs. Grizz piece in the sports doldrums of summer. It worked, a lot of people got riled up.

Strickland is a nice guy. A consensus builder. Sometimes it's better for an executive to be an *******. Imo, Strickland should have just said - "Ok, we're splitting the $350M down the middle. Liberty Bowl gets $175M, Forum gets $175M. In addition to that, Forum gets the money from the tax extensions. We're done, make it work." But that's not in his nature.

(09-14-2023 11:46 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  So does anyone think Strickland is just passing the buck to the next mayor ?

Yes. Strickland is an incompetent dumb***.

(09-12-2023 03:57 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 03:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  David Rudd, Tom Bowen & later Laird Veatch & Bill Hardgrave all should have been making the case to the state for an OCS & P5 inclusion for the past decade; & had they, we would not be mired in this very predictable pork barrel dole out.

Yes, we need an OCS, but it's not up to the state to pay for it. The school has to pay for it. USF just completed the funding for their $340M OCS, and it's $140M in cash & gifts and $200M via a bond offering. U of Houston helped pay for their OCS with $45 per semester student fee.

And Dr. Rudd did all he could do. Maybe he should have pushed for and OCS harder. But Dr. Rudd kept Bowen away from expansion and facilities. Dr. Rudd thought Bowen was a clown. Bowen started at a $400K salary, and still was making $400K 7 years later. There was a reason Bowen was interviewing for jobs every year.

Bowen IS a clown.

(09-14-2023 11:52 AM)Tigx Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 11:46 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  So does anyone think Strickland is just passing the buck to the next mayor ?

No, I think the opposite. It will be his final act as mayor, a legacy achievement.

I'm in the this isn't a big deal camp. It will get resolved. Calkins wrote a Tigers vs. Grizz piece in the sports doldrums of summer. It worked, a lot of people got riled up.

Strickland is a nice guy. A consensus builder. Sometimes it's better for an executive to be an *******. Imo, Strickland should have just said - "Ok, we're splitting the $350M down the middle. Liberty Bowl gets $175M, Forum gets $175M. In addition to that, Forum gets the money from the tax extensions. We're done, make it work." But that's not in his nature.

Oh I’m with you I don’t think it’s that big of a deal either. But I’m no Strickland fan. He talks a good game but doesn’t always back it up

(09-14-2023 11:46 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  So does anyone think Strickland is just passing the buck to the next mayor ?

I think the push from Veatch/Hargrave is more about getting this approved while Strickland is still in office (and less about construction deadlines). It seems to me Strick is an advocate for the university in this. When any of these other yahoos get elected, they will probably want to give the whole $350m to the Grizz.