New student fee to redo Arizona stadium

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:05 am

Sid wrote:
azgreg wrote:
3goggles wrote:I was student there. It's only $200 for fucks sake!
That's a lot of Ramen.
That's one of my favorite accounts. I need all the kids across America to continue to buy this fine product!

We buy it by the case.

azpenguin · Post by **azpenguin** » Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:04 pm

azthrillhouse wrote:8 million/year is a hell of a lot for an advertising fee.

azgreg wrote: That's a lot of Ramen.

Sid wrote:That's one of my favorite accounts. I need all the kids across America to continue to buy this fine product!

Hmmm... I think we may have found our advertiser for the $8 million naming rights

Jefe · Post by **Jefe** » Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:27 pm

Made quick work of the demo.

Thw webcam is also a good way to keep an eye on your car...unlike the guy who already got a ticket

ALASKACAT · Post by **ALASKACAT** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 12:25 am

What becomes of Sancet's chair back seats? Will they be used in the football stadium?

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Wed Feb 24, 2016 6:19 am

Puerco wrote:Right back at ya, Newport.

Why not raise ticket prices to cover the cost of the renovations? So that maybe, you know, the people who actually benefit from said renovations pay for their cost?

They are planning on charging a season ticket holders with a big fee for the renovations and charge higher ticket prices.

However if you understood how finance worked you would get that by charging the students a fixed fee that is guarenteed each year, they can go raise debt through selling bonds around that. IE $8M a year in a student fee equals probably $100M in bonds. Now you coul charge higher ticket prices but that is not fixed or guaranteed income so you would not be able to raise bonds around it. Given the fact you have said you would potentially rather win the PAC 12 Title in basketball then make a Final Four, I know it might be difficult for you to understand things like this.

I liked this article written from a current U of A student

http://www.azdesertswarm.com/2016/2/18/ ... o-renovate

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Wed Feb 24, 2016 6:20 am

ASUHATER! wrote:
Newportcat wrote:
ASUHATER! wrote:
3goggles wrote:I was student there. It's only $200 for fucks sake!
Would you be willing to pay that kinda money every year for something you never use or care about? Lots of students could give a crap about football and will never go near the stadium. It's reasonable to expect them to be upset about having to pay for it.
They have to pay $150 a year to use the REC. How many students at the U of A use the REC center...25%.

Remember too, this fee would not be imposed on any current students but only future students so future students would have a choice whether to attend the U of A r not if they strongly disagreed with this fee.

You guys keep dismissing this and our program will continue to suck. I f*cking hate a lot of Arizona fans
Says the guy who dismisses 90% of the basketball season. I fucking hate a lot of Arizona fans ...

No one likes you ASUHATER

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Wed Feb 24, 2016 7:50 am

Newportcat wrote:
ASUHATER! wrote:
Newportcat wrote:
ASUHATER! wrote:
3goggles wrote:I was student there. It's only $200 for fucks sake!
Would you be willing to pay that kinda money every year for something you never use or care about? Lots of students could give a crap about football and will never go near the stadium. It's reasonable to expect them to be upset about having to pay for it.
They have to pay $150 a year to use the REC. How many students at the U of A use the REC center...25%.

Remember too, this fee would not be imposed on any current students but only future students so future students would have a choice whether to attend the U of A r not if they strongly disagreed with this fee.

You guys keep dismissing this and our program will continue to suck. I f*cking hate a lot of Arizona fans
Says the guy who dismisses 90% of the basketball season. I fucking hate a lot of Arizona fans ...
No one likes you ASUHATER

UALoco · Post by **UALoco** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:05 pm

Yep, charge the fee. If a student doesn't want to pay the fee, they can go to a school that doesn't charge it. Sports are important to the UA, it helps keep the school in the national spotlight and keeps enrollment up.

Gladiator Cat · Post by **Gladiator Cat** » Wed Mar 23, 2016 4:23 pm

When the greater fool populace finally awakes from this insane diabolical financialized educational Ponzi Scheme of enslaving our children with a lifetime of debt servitude to the bankers for increasingly worthless degrees will be a godsend.

More importantly when commonsense is brought back into the national conversation and the dishonest and disgusting non-bankruptcy laws are rewritten for grotesque over-priced bloated college student loans, so a level playing field is once again instituted for the common good of our children will be a godsend.

I say the students stick their middle finger up in the air at all of these over paid, over compensated administrators and tell them all to go fund it with their six figure pay packages.

When the national university student loan debt enslavement Ponzi scheme finally dies, the mushroom cloud is going to be epic.

Jefe · Post by **Jefe** » Fri May 27, 2016 5:01 pm

Making progress

wyo-cat · Post by **wyo-cat** » Fri May 27, 2016 5:03 pm

They have finally reopened as Enke Dr. They are putting some utilities across.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Fri May 27, 2016 5:30 pm

Wow quick work. Must've just started in the last week or two. Crazy to see the stadium gone.

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 10:28 am

Couple things and yes I am a huge nerd when it comes to Arizona facilities

1. I did not see this before but looks like along with the New Academic facility they are adding two polor Plunge pools for the football team. Great idea and should be yet another improvement to help recruiting. By the way looks like they are making great progress on the facility too

http://www.pdc.arizona.edu/project/15-9273

2. They have added the Arizona Stadium further improvements to the U of A construction website. This is a good step because typically this means they will now go through the process of engaging an architect and paying them to put together a comprehensive design and pricing plan that they can then go use to raise money for the facility. I still believe a Student fee is coming as that way they can have a recurring revenue stream in place to be able to raise bonds to support what should be a fairly large construction job.
http://www.pdc.arizona.edu/project/16-9330

3. Digging even further, the U of A I was able to find the 2009 Vision Plan for facilities for Arizona Athletics done under Jim Livengood that lists a comprehensive master plan for all U of A athletic facilities. I knew Jim pretty well and while he got a lot of crap from many fans for his performance, he was the catalyst before Greg Byrne got here to look at our outdated facilities and put this plan in place. Essentially Greg stepped into this plan and has been using it to follow the needed steps to improve our athletic facilities. First step was the North End Zone project as everything was contingent on that, Second was rehab of McKale once football team left, Third is the now Relocation of Wildcat Academic Center to open up more space inside McKale, Fourth is improvements to facilities like our Softball stadium, swimming, soccer, track, Golf, etc.

Greg has done a lot in his 6 years here getting this plan going including

North End Zone Project relocating Football team and adding fan amenities
Rehab of McKale including fan amenities and new locker rooms for Men/Women Basketball, Volleyball, GymCats
Relocation of Baseball to Hi Corbett
New football practice facility in old baseball stadium
Addition of Sand Volleyball courts
New Clubhouse at Hillenbrand
New Golf playing and training facility at Sawailo Golf Course
New Scoreboards for Football, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, and now I believe Track, Softball and Tennis are getting done.

However, Jim Livengood deserves a some credit for seeing that a new vision plan was needed to be in place to start all this improvement work back in 2008.

You can access the master plan through the link below. It is a large Zip file but interesting information on all our facilities. Didn't realize how much work they want to do to our Swimming, Soccer, Track, and Tennis facilities. All seem outdated and in need of major new improvements.

http://www.pdc.arizona.edu/file/rfq/Ari ... ay2016.zip

Obviously things will change with this plan the most dramatic being the relocation of the baseball team which has opened up space that was not originally thought to be available here. I continue to pray this is where they will tear down the rest of the stadium and put in new grass football fields as well as an indoor practice facility.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:39 am

Sid wrote:
azgreg wrote:
3goggles wrote:I was student there. It's only $200 for fucks sake!
That's a lot of Ramen.
That's one of my favorite accounts. I need all the kids across America to continue to buy this fine product!

When I was a poor college student I ate a lot of mac and cheese, at 4 boxes for a buck.

Ramen can actually be tasty if you don't use their seasoning packet.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:25 pm

Merkin wrote:
Sid wrote:
azgreg wrote:
3goggles wrote:I was student there. It's only $200 for fucks sake!
That's a lot of Ramen.
That's one of my favorite accounts. I need all the kids across America to continue to buy this fine product!

When I was a poor college student I ate a lot of mac and cheese, at 4 boxes for a buck.

Ramen can actually be tasty if you don't use their seasoning packet.

I use the seasoning packet in conjunction with other things. I add garlic and onion powder, chili flakes, soy sauce, rice wine vinegar and ginger to the ramen

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:03 pm

Rich Rod on Indoor facility...been saying for years how badly we needed one and how Rich Rod has always agreed with me. Many posters disagreed with me on various sites. I think it could be a potential game changer for us and should be done before they re-do our stadium.

"I’ve been here four and a half years and (originally) I thought ‘it never rains here, why do we need a facility?'," Rodriguez said. "But because of the heat in the summer and because of the unpredictability of the storms in this month, it’s not a want, it’s a need."

http://www.azdesertswarm.com/football/2 ... e-Wildcats

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:23 pm

something being needed 1/12 of the year is a want, not a need. it would help recruiting possibly and i wouldn't mind us having one, but it's absolutely not a need.

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:46 pm

ASUHATER! wrote:something being needed 1/12 of the year is a want, not a need. it would help recruiting possibly and i wouldn't mind us having one, but it's absolutely not a need.

ASUHater, interesting comments that as always look really stupid. I still can not believe an Arizona fan would not be completely 1000% in support of an indoor facility.

1. In Arizona, summer is usually from about the beginning of May to middle of October where it is really really hot most days. That is a 5 to 6 month period of time where an indoor facility is needed so that our football team can practice at any time of day and not have to deal with the heat. So saying the facility is needed just 1/12 of the year is stupid, illogical, and asinine given it would get used a lot 5 to 6 months out of the year.

2. Most recruits visit Arizona in the middle of the summer months. Please explain to everyone how having an indoor facility for camps or these recruiting visits would not completely help us overcome one of the largest objections recruits make about Arizona, the HEAT. Please enlighten us how it could "possibly" help recruiting. If it only could possibly help recruiting and not definitely help recruiting, then some part of you must think there is the chance it could hurt Recruiting or do Nothing with our recruiting. Love to see your reasoning there.

3. You say its absolutely not a need after reading Rich Rod say it is a Need. Do you feel you are more educated then Rich Rod on what our program needs to make this statement?

I am at a loss for words you wrote what you wrote. This is not http://www.uasports.net" target="_blank so everyone here is entitled to their own opinion when it comes to Arizona football, but that is a really really really dumb opinion

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:46 pm

i'm in support of a practice facility. of course i am. it's just not a need.

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Wed Aug 10, 2016 8:59 pm

I will trust Rich Rod in this debate ASUHATER as we definitely NEED an indoor facility just like we NEEDED the Richard Jefferson facility just like we NEEDED to move baseball to Hi Corbett Field, etc.

Not having an indoor facility puts our program at a disadvantage that Rich Rod recognizes

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:09 pm

Damn, now that's passion NC. We all want a facility but I like how Hater calmly defines it as a want, which I agree. You know you need to eat but you may want to eat out. The only need argument is the, " we need to it to stay up with conference card"

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:30 pm

azcat49 wrote: The only need argument is the, " we need to it to stay up with conference card"

Is there any other need more important then trying to stay competitive with our conference foes so we can finally win our conference?

Again, I am taking our head coach's side in this little debate...feel he might have a better view of things

I am always passionate about Arizona football as I do think our program has a lot of potential to be a much better program then it traditionally has been but we can not compete with programs like USC and UCLA without top notch facilities over the long term.

Irish27 · Post by **Irish27** » Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:12 pm

There is no student fee for the athletic department this fall semester, so I guess we will have to wait to see when this gets implemented.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:16 pm

Don't disagree with anything you have said but if the last few days of AZ football has shown us anything is that we need to remember that this is just a game

#forever65

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 3:16 am

Newportcat wrote:
ASUHATER! wrote:something being needed 1/12 of the year is a want, not a need. it would help recruiting possibly and i wouldn't mind us having one, but it's absolutely not a need.
ASUHater, interesting comments that as always look really stupid. I still can not believe an Arizona fan would not be completely 1000% in support of an indoor facility.

1. In Arizona, summer is usually from about the beginning of May to middle of October where it is really really hot most days. That is a 5 to 6 month period of time where an indoor facility is needed so that our football team can practice at any time of day and not have to deal with the heat. So saying the facility is needed just 1/12 of the year is stupid, illogical, and asinine given it would get used a lot 5 to 6 months out of the year.

2. Most recruits visit Arizona in the middle of the summer months. Please explain to everyone how having an indoor facility for camps or these recruiting visits would not completely help us overcome one of the largest objections recruits make about Arizona, the HEAT. Please enlighten us how it could "possibly" help recruiting. If it only could possibly help recruiting and not definitely help recruiting, then some part of you must think there is the chance it could hurt Recruiting or do Nothing with our recruiting. Love to see your reasoning there.

3. You say its absolutely not a need after reading Rich Rod say it is a Need. Do you feel you are more educated then Rich Rod on what our program needs to make this statement?

I am at a loss for words you wrote what you wrote. This is not http://www.uasports.net" target="_blank so everyone here is entitled to their own opinion when it comes to Arizona football, but that is a really really really dumb opinion

1. You played football in Arizona. I played football in Arizona. Most of us on this site probably played football in Arizona. We didn't have practice bubbles, and I doubt the heat has gotten much worse from when we were kids. A bubble would be a luxury, a nice to have. It's certainly not a need.
2. Do you have any evidence that a lack of practice bubble or the heat is one of the 'largest objections recruits make about Arizona'? I'd love to see it instead of just hearing about it from facility nerds.
3. Any coach wants every facility he can get. Cost is not an obstacle. 'Hater, as an Arizona tax payer, has every right to be critical of a coach's demands.

Newport, do you have any construction contracts in place with U of A? Is that why you're so vehement on this marginal topic?

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 5:51 am

I think it falls somewhere between. Do we have to have one? No. Would it be beneficial? Definitely.

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:04 am

azcat49 wrote:Don't disagree with anything you have said but if the last few days of AZ football has shown us anything is that we need to remember that this is just a game

#forever65

I of course do not disagree with this as it is just a game. Honestly, I think a very valid reason for needing this facility is so that our football team and other teams like track, soccer, etc can better avoid practicing during the extreme heat parts of the year. I personally think it is dangerous to have guys practice all the time in this type of heat. The new cold pools we built is a great new tool we have to help but since 1995 there have been 52 deaths in football related to heat across the US.

Newportcat · Post by **Newportcat** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:20 am

Puerco wrote:
Newportcat wrote:
ASUHATER! wrote:something being needed 1/12 of the year is a want, not a need. it would help recruiting possibly and i wouldn't mind us having one, but it's absolutely not a need.
ASUHater, interesting comments that as always look really stupid. I still can not believe an Arizona fan would not be completely 1000% in support of an indoor facility.

1. In Arizona, summer is usually from about the beginning of May to middle of October where it is really really hot most days. That is a 5 to 6 month period of time where an indoor facility is needed so that our football team can practice at any time of day and not have to deal with the heat. So saying the facility is needed just 1/12 of the year is stupid, illogical, and asinine given it would get used a lot 5 to 6 months out of the year.

2. Most recruits visit Arizona in the middle of the summer months. Please explain to everyone how having an indoor facility for camps or these recruiting visits would not completely help us overcome one of the largest objections recruits make about Arizona, the HEAT. Please enlighten us how it could "possibly" help recruiting. If it only could possibly help recruiting and not definitely help recruiting, then some part of you must think there is the chance it could hurt Recruiting or do Nothing with our recruiting. Love to see your reasoning there.

3. You say its absolutely not a need after reading Rich Rod say it is a Need. Do you feel you are more educated then Rich Rod on what our program needs to make this statement?

I am at a loss for words you wrote what you wrote. This is not http://www.uasports.net" target="_blank so everyone here is entitled to their own opinion when it comes to Arizona football, but that is a really really really dumb opinion

1. You played football in Arizona. I played football in Arizona. Most of us on this site probably played football in Arizona. We didn't have practice bubbles, and I doubt the heat has gotten much worse from when we were kids. A bubble would be a luxury, a nice to have. It's certainly not a need. -

I played Water Polo at U of A and in high school, a real mans sport. I had many friends who played football though at U of A including my roommate and I can always remember them complaining about the heat. When school starts they can not practice in the mornings or later at night and are forced to practice in the afternoons. I could tell guys would get worn down from it as the season went on and have always felt it contributes to the fact that every year it seems we have at least 2 games where we completely sh*t the bed and do not even show up for a game. The other thing that sucks about practice right now is literally every day they have to check the weather, then re-check, then get everyone ready then things practice time changes, then its canceled, then its not, etc. I remember my roommate complaining about this as it was sometimes hard to get prepped because the weather this time of year is so unpredictable. Also as mentioned, once school starts they can not change practice times so always a couple practices in September which get squeezed or canceled due to monsoons. Given the typical talent on our teams, we can not afford to miss any practice time ever.

2. Do you have any evidence that a lack of practice bubble or the heat is one of the 'largest objections recruits make about Arizona'? I'd love to see it instead of just hearing about it from facility nerds. -

I am close to a guy who is as close to Southern California high school football as you can get. He has told me time and time again that one of the biggest objections he hears when guys mention Arizona is the heat. Most guys visit now during the summers and we also hold our camps in the summer. He hears every year from guys who attend our camps how they discuss how Hot it is in Tucson. He feels strongly that many guys will not even look at Arizona due to our weather. He also feels its a reason why we struggle at getting in state recruits as they have first hand knowledge of how hot it is. Rich Rod has mentioned the difficulties of getting guys on campus to visit and having an indoor facility would only help solve this problem because especially recruits from SoCal believe it is really really hot in Arizona.

3. Any coach wants every facility he can get. Cost is not an obstacle. 'Hater, as an Arizona tax payer, has every right to be critical of a coach's demands. -

As an Arizona tax payer, why would he have this right as no tax payer money has ever gone into Arizona Athletics facilities or to pay coaches salaries etc? That point makes no sense.

Newport, do you have any construction contracts in place with U of A? Is that why you're so vehement on this marginal topic? -

I have zero construction contracts with U of A. I am just a loyal donor who wants the best for our university. I am prepared to donate my money to this project because I know how much it would help our program. So this facility will cost me money which is fine as I have always been willing to give to causes at U of A I feel strongly about. Ask Rich Rod to his face next time you see him if this is a marginal topic.

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:04 am

1. When were you there? Had a really good friend on the water polo team back 85-87. I had a few friends on the football team back then, but never heard much complaint. Of course I didn't see them much in August, so maybe I just didn't hear it. Valid point on possible impacts from getting worn out -- I accept that.
2. Cool. Thanks. I haven't ever seen it mentioned in 'official' press, but I suppose the kids don't want to look like p*ssies.
3. No, it's not dumb. The UA is a taxpayer funded institution. If the athletic department were cash rich and spent less they could funnel the extra cash back into the general university. In addition, student fees and tuition are a form of taxation. Any extra spending by the department increases costs on all students and tax payers.

I wish I could have the opportunity to see Rich Rod face to face, or even to see a game played live except on a crappy, illegal internet stream. You don't know how lucky you are!

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:31 am

Why are we bringing up tax payers in this debate? They wouldn't pay a dime towards any athletic facility. It all comes out of the AD budget (money made from profits) as well as donations. Always has and always will. Now if you want to bitch about Rich Rod's salary as a taxpayer then you have ground to stand on.

On another note not having an indoor facility hurt us in the sense that literally every one else in our conference and vast majority of power 5 schools have one. Not having one is a negative for us and a positive for others, it just is. An indoor facility is a need in situations where the monsoons do not play nice and also to get rid of a negative against us in recruiting.

Gilbertcat · Post by **Gilbertcat** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:25 am

It comes down to recruiting and having a fixed training schedule. If you are forced to practice at 6:30 am when other schools practice in the afternoon, a kid might not want to do that and skip this school. And when you change practice times to fit the weather, it impacts your classes and can limit what classes you can take (also a factor in picking schools). This really impacts upper level classes. Have a bubble, make practice time in the afternoon when you see a break between the majority of classes and get those kids here. I dont know the right way to pay for it but its need is bigger then what the weight room looks like imho.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:42 am

ChooChooCat wrote:Why are we bringing up tax payers in this debate? They wouldn't pay a dime towards any athletic facility. It all comes out of the AD budget (money made from profits) as well as donations. Always has and always will. Now if you want to bitch about Rich Rod's salary as a taxpayer then you have ground to stand on.

On another note not having an indoor facility hurt us in the sense that literally every one else in our conference and vast majority of power 5 schools have one. Not having one is a negative for us and a positive for others, it just is. An indoor facility is a need in situations where the monsoons do not play nice and also to get rid of a negative against us in recruiting.

cal, stanford and ucla don't have indoor facilities (at least as of last year)

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:51 am

ASUHATER! wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:Why are we bringing up tax payers in this debate? They wouldn't pay a dime towards any athletic facility. It all comes out of the AD budget (money made from profits) as well as donations. Always has and always will. Now if you want to bitch about Rich Rod's salary as a taxpayer then you have ground to stand on.

On another note not having an indoor facility hurt us in the sense that literally every one else in our conference and vast majority of power 5 schools have one. Not having one is a negative for us and a positive for others, it just is. An indoor facility is a need in situations where the monsoons do not play nice and also to get rid of a negative against us in recruiting.
cal, stanford and ucla don't have indoor facilities (at least as of last year)

UCLA is in the process of building one. I thought Cal was, but looks like it's a bball facility so my bad there. Furd doesn't recruit the same kids most people too, they're null and void in any debate.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:54 am

still, far from your claim of "literally every one else in our conference has one"

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 1:10 pm

ASUHATER! wrote:still, far from your claim of "literally every one else in our conference has one"

Much closer than your claim that certain players' careers are over after a couple of knee injuries, but hey whose counting Dr. Hater?

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 1:13 pm

ChooChooCat wrote:
ASUHATER! wrote:still, far from your claim of "literally every one else in our conference has one"
Much closer than your claim that certain players' careers are over after a couple of knee injuries, but hey whose counting Dr. Hater?

what the f*ck does that have to do with football practice facilities? holy grasping at straws after a beatdown batman!

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 1:23 pm

ASUHATER! wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:
ASUHATER! wrote:still, far from your claim of "literally every one else in our conference has one"
Much closer than your claim that certain players' careers are over after a couple of knee injuries, but hey whose counting Dr. Hater?
what the f*ck does that have to do with football practice facilities? holy grasping at straws after a beatdown batman!

Beatdown? I was off by 2 schools, god forbid the point that Oregon State and Wazzu have an indoor practice facility and we don't isn't bad enough right? Look you're just some guy who can't admit when he's wrong (noticed I admitted I was wrong about Cal) and speaks in absolutes whilst talking out of his ass repeatedly. If speaking about your displayed character is grasping at straws then fair enough, either way though it's hard to value anything you have to say on any topic from what I've seen.

azpenguin · Post by **azpenguin** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:16 pm

I'm looking at this from a different perspective than a lot of people.

There's no question that I love Arizona football and I've been going to games for a long, long time. I want them to win. I want that Pac-12 title and Rose Bowl. But I'm wondering when the arms race gets to be too much. The football facilities Arizona has now are amazing. Go back ten years and look at the stadium. One small video board. The offices and weight rooms and everything is in McKale. A really "meh" locker room. Aluminum bleachers that used to be temporary are the north end zone stands. Now we've got a stunning three story football plant, state of the art locker rooms, a north end zone that's top notch, two HD video boards including one that's bigger than a basketball court. And yet our facilities are considered to be middling as far as the Pac-12 goes. Now the debate is how badly Arizona needs an indoor practice facility. Don't get me wrong, I get it from a recruiting standpoint. I get it from a weather standpoint. So lets say the school raises the millions for it. What will be the next multi-million "must have" item? We're looking at requiring the students to pay extra money for these new facilities now. The school has spent $80 million on the stadium, they;re looking at a lot more (and much of this is badly needed, considering the building is 90 years old in places), coaching salaries have risen several times over in the last decade, and other sports such as basketball are also getting upgrades. The question is, is this going in a direction where someone finally decides enough is enough? I don't see Arizona football going away, but I can foresee a time when they're not working on trying to stay competitive with other schools as far as facilities and such are concerned.

I don't fault Byrne for this one bit. He has a job to do - running the athletic department in the best way possible, raising money, keeping the community engaged. And he's doing it in a way that's conscious of the school's needs and the concerns of everyone involved. I just wonder if, in these days of skyrocketing education costs, someone in power is eventually going to force the department to stop trying to keep up in the rat race.

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:31 pm

University of Texas, the richest athletic department in all the land, has a practice bubble that cost them $4 million. They obviously cost a bit more now, but a practice bubble isn't a backbreaker monetarily and you can avoid needing to be bailed out by the professional football team 2 hours north if you build one. I'm not for spending double figure millions here, but a few million for a bubble? Heck we just built a totally unnecessary academic center for $7.5 million. Just build it already.

UALoco · Post by **UALoco** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:53 pm

No practice bubble...no Rose Bowl...coincidence, I think not.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:23 pm

UALoco wrote:No practice bubble...no Rose Bowl...coincidence, I think not.

Oh shit, that is the reason we have never been there.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:04 pm

Yup that state of the art bubble got Oregon state there in 1941.

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Fri Aug 12, 2016 12:22 am

ChooChooCat wrote:Why are we bringing up tax payers in this debate? They wouldn't pay a dime towards any athletic facility. It all comes out of the AD budget (money made from profits) as well as donations. Always has and always will. Now if you want to bitch about Rich Rod's salary as a taxpayer then you have ground to stand on.

On another note not having an indoor facility hurt us in the sense that literally every one else in our conference and vast majority of power 5 schools have one. Not having one is a negative for us and a positive for others, it just is. An indoor facility is a need in situations where the monsoons do not play nice and also to get rid of a negative against us in recruiting.

Wait, so the UA Athletic Department is somehow not a part of the University of Arizona? Their budget is completely separate? Come on, choochoo, don't be so simple. The UA is a single entity, so any funds spent anywhere affect the amount left over to pay for all the other activities taken on by the university.

If donors step up and give $4-5 million specifically to be used for the bubble, that's one thing. In any other scenario it costs either the students or the tax payers.

PHXCATS · Post by **PHXCATS** » Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:46 am

I thought I read somewhere that u of a athletics operates in the black without any tax money.

So yeah I do not think money to build a needed indoor facility takes away from any research or other project for the university.

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:48 am

PHXCATS wrote:I thought I read somewhere that u of a athletics operates in the black without any tax money

I think the only thing the Athletic Department gets from the University is the tuition waivers.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:29 am

UA AD made a $4M profit last fiscal year according to the DOE Equity in Athletics site.

Football made about $3M profit, men's basketball $10M profit. Women's basketball lost $2M just itself.

Softball has operating expenses of only $548K by comparison. Beach volleyball had expenses of just $108K.

azpenguin · Post by **azpenguin** » Fri Aug 12, 2016 9:16 am

UAEebs86 wrote:
PHXCATS wrote:I thought I read somewhere that u of a athletics operates in the black without any tax money
I think the only thing the Athletic Department gets from the University is the tuition waivers.

That's my understanding as well. One thing that Byrne inherited from Livengood was a very fiscally sound department. That's a crucial building block for moving forward.

EVCat · Post by **EVCat** » Fri Aug 12, 2016 12:05 pm

Merkin wrote:
Sid wrote:
azgreg wrote:
3goggles wrote:I was student there. It's only $200 for fucks sake!
That's a lot of Ramen.
That's one of my favorite accounts. I need all the kids across America to continue to buy this fine product!

When I was a poor college student I ate a lot of mac and cheese, at 4 boxes for a buck.

Ramen can actually be tasty if you don't use their seasoning packet.

This is why I worked at restaurants and places with restaurants (golf course). 50% off tickets for employees become free food when you know the cooks. "Can you whip up a #3 mistake? Thanks!".... "Oh, no...this #3 was a mistake...here you go."

EVCat · Post by **EVCat** » Fri Aug 12, 2016 12:17 pm

azpenguin wrote:
UAEebs86 wrote:
PHXCATS wrote:I thought I read somewhere that u of a athletics operates in the black without any tax money
I think the only thing the Athletic Department gets from the University is the tuition waivers.
That's my understanding as well. One thing that Byrne inherited from Livengood was a very fiscally sound department. That's a crucial building block for moving forward.

This is a crucial miss in the "Livengood is Satan" narrative that surrounded the previous board (and I assume travelled here).

He wasn't Ced Dempsey, but given our donor level increases during his time and his administration of a department that didn't need to use some of ASUs tricks to survive (borrow money from general fund, accelerate payment on naming rights to make payroll), he was better than average. The Miller/hoops coach debacle wasn't nearly as clear as some make it out to be (the UK opening screwed a big splash hiring, and we were held somewhat hostage by the Lute hokey-pokey and the remaining program after he had to completely bow out). He made one clear mistake in his AD time...John Mackovic. And God knows that was huge, but it wasn't a horrible decision from foresight, just in retrospect. There were warning signs (his dismissal from KC after getting them into the playoffs, 66-3, former UA coaches/players remembering his time here as an assistant), but the fanbase was demanding an offensive genius after years of Desert Swarm, and our bankroll wasn't such to hire a sure thing. We couldn't hire an up and coming assistant with season ticket base down and overall attendance down. He couldn't have pulled the trigger quicker on Tomey...1998 happened, and even 2000 started 5-1 before the unraveling vs UW and UCLA. It became a bit of a pitchfork and torch crowd related to Livengood, but he was a good to very good AD with a disastrous hiring and the very unusual decision of having the legendary coach of the premier program go through a 2 year leave of absence then hiring a replacement. And Livengood got a top tier coach on the hook, had a bigger program open up, and in the end, got Miller.

A lot of people put the Miller hire on Calipari getting involved, but Livengood made that relationship happen. Calipari praising Livengood as he took the UK job showed how much care went into that relationship, and it paid off when Calipari picked up the phone and got the principals on the line to make it work at UA. Rather than look at that as a negative for JL, I look at it as a positive...he was prepared for the endgame, had to pivot, and his relationship with his first solution helped him get his 2nd solution when all hell was breaking loose.

azpenguin · Post by **azpenguin** » Fri Aug 12, 2016 12:58 pm

Yep. I certainly don't think Livengood was a bad AD. I think the biggest thing at the end of his tenure was just that he wasn't a high energy type, it felt like he was someone who was just going with the flow. Byrne is the complete opposite. He was a badly needed shot of adrenaline for the school.

Login • Register