On facilities
by pmoose (2024-04-05 14:14:43)

In reply to: Events are conspiring for ND  posted by SEE


I thought ND's facilities were already quite good. I suppose the Gug is getting a bit aged (hard to believe it was completed almost 20 years ago at this point), but we have also since installed an separate indoor football field facility (do they even use the football field that was around the indoor track anymore, or did that get transitioned over after the new indoor football field?).

What does ND Football need that they don't have already to be top tier?

I may be completely ignorant on this topic, because I don't know what any other schools have in terms of facilities.


I don't think its practice space.
by Kali4niaND  (2024-04-05 15:03:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Seems to be more focused on nutrition facilities, dining areas, meeting rooms, office space, etc.


These things change quickly
by mocopdx  (2024-04-05 14:58:59)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

ND isn't close to the top ten in facilities right now. Take a look at Clemson, LSU, Oregon, Texas A&M, Georgia, Ohio State, and more. Their setups make the Gug look antiquated.

I'm not saying it's a good thing- I hate this rat race and spending spree, but it's the sad reality of modern CFB.


Top 10 facilities changes over every 3 years
by DakotaDomer  (2024-04-05 17:01:08)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I don't understand the capital waste spent on making sure the facilities are "top tier". It's an arms race that makes the cold war look tame.


re-deploy that money to players.
by MrE  (2024-04-05 16:57:51)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Same with coach pay and athletic dept. staff/overhead.

I'm kind of shocked schools are moving forward with significant facility spends for sports, although I suppose donors prefer their names on tangible buildings.


Sad realities
by SEE  (2024-04-05 15:22:47)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

It seems like everyone adjusts to sad realities pretty quickly

I would’ve thought NIL was the last straw


I am curious about JT's thoughts on facilities
by Pat85  (2024-04-05 15:05:10)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

IF there is ever a plan that is collectively bargained and that shares revenues with college football players at the elite level, wouldn't that organically bring expenditures on facilities and coach salaries down to a "reasonable" level? It feels like the money in the sport is wasted now on a game of one-upping on facilities, coach salaries, staffing, and recruiting. And sadly not on the best and safest playing surfaces in stadiums.


Most likely.
by MrE  (2024-04-05 16:59:45)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

There was a recent article that I think Dennis Dodd had a major school AD mentioning his departmental budget was like a crime scene due to player payroll/NIL taking a bite.

The bite is going to get a whole lot bigger with House vs NCAA, etc. coming up in 9 months.


Am I reading this correctly that an AD said his school was
by VaDblDmr  (2024-04-05 17:31:01)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

directly paying players out of his athletic budget, presumably under the guise of "NIL"?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it happens just like the $100 handshake used to happen, but I'm pretty surprised an AD would brazenly admit that he's doing it to a writer.


It was more in preparation for the coming storm of
by MrE  (2024-04-05 18:13:07)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

the House case ruling going against them and future anticipated player payroll expenses. My initial post was not an accurate recollection of the article - here's a snippet:

"One Power Five athletic director recently winced after taking a glimpse at his balance sheet. His financial outlook is not much different than his peers' with multiple high-speed bullet trains all coming into the station at the same time. The most unpredictable of all being expected revenue sharing with athletes through collective bargaining.

"It feels like my budget is about to look like a murder scene," that AD said.

Those projections -- typically called pro forma budgets -- are based on "what if?" hypotheticals. Like any good business person, an AD attempts to determine what expenditures are ahead and how much revenue will be coming in. Right now, they are struggling to project either."