Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Video of the expansion-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5850&hl=en

Pics and details of the expansion-

http://www.msubobcats.com/upload/pdf1_2 ... 883323.pdf

About an eight year project to get thru Phase 6.

Very nice!!

Is this capacity really needed???
This is the Bobcats, not the Griz...

guinzone wrote:Is this capacity really needed???
This is the Bobcats, not the Griz...

You truly are dumber than a f**k'ing rock aren't you?

Very nice, and very appropriate to stimulate increased attendance and quality of the games.

Kudos to the committee that put this together and the AD that backed this.

22k capacity. sweet!

Great pictures (I can't see the video at work...)

You say eight years to get through Phase Six...are they starting now (assume finish in 2016)

Col Hogan wrote:Great pictures (I can't see the video at work...)

You say eight years to get through Phase Six...are they starting now (assume finish in 2016)

I think 8 years is for Phases 1-4 plus construction of an indoor practice facility. The AD said in todays paper that the entire project is $100 M and will take up to 20 years. No state money or student fees will be used for the expansion.

GOKATS wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:Great pictures (I can't see the video at work...)

You say eight years to get through Phase Six...are they starting now (assume finish in 2016)

I think 8 years is for Phases 1-4 plus construction of an indoor practice facility. The AD said in todays paper that the entire project is $100 M and will take up to 20 years. No state money or student fees will be used for the expansion.

I'll believe THAT when I see it.

SuperHornet wrote:

GOKATS wrote: I think 8 years is for Phases 1-4 plus construction of an indoor practice facility. The AD said in todays paper that the entire project is $100 M and will take up to 20 years. No state money or student fees will be used for the expansion.

I'll believe THAT when I see it.

I'm sure the MSU adminisration cares about your concern- I'll be sure to pass it on. I know their long term goal is match that of Suck State.

To be quite honest with you I am not an idiot. I am simply asking why on earth does MSU need a 22k seat stadium... I was unaware they were selling out their stadium right now and that their was such a need to expand... Just wondering....

SuperHornet wrote:

GOKATS wrote: I think 8 years is for Phases 1-4 plus construction of an indoor practice facility. The AD said in todays paper that the entire project is $100 M and will take up to 20 years. No state money or student fees will be used for the expansion.

I'll believe THAT when I see it.

It's possible, based upon the scheme of bldg the Skyboxes first, then allowing the $500k projected revenue to fund the balance.

This is kind of what I do for a living...teach construction companies and PM's how to 'git r' done' with the tools available in the market they exist. Many of my clients have/are doing stadium/athletic facility expansions. The plan that MSU is using is pretty much S.O.P. for all university football facility expansion projects. Some get a bigger initial boost than others (OK State's $100m private donation by T.Boone Pickens a couple of years ago, which was triggered by a 'private sector' $60m match...when finished, with increased revenues from the Corporate donors/rentals, the entire facility expansion will cost over $288m.).

I've said this many times in the past, the 'mindset' by facility managers/Regents/university admin. in CA as well as some schools on the East coast is to pass the cost on to the students/general public (NOT corporate or private donors), THEN LEAVE THE FEE INCREASE IN PLACE AS A DEFACTO FORM OF PERMANENT REVENUE INCREASE (TAX INCREASE). It is absolutely, 100%, a paradigm of the CA public administration mindset. While there are some exceptions, that is the rule. I volunteered to sit on a committee looking to raise funds for a community athletic facility a couple of years ago in Sacto...however...I had fairly confidentally predicted we could go into the corporate community and EASILY raise the seed funding required for the project. When my suggestions were aired at a meeting with "planners" from the County sitting in, and the notion of seeking private funding was discussed, which correspondingly REMOVED a portion of their final control of the facility use...the planners, mumbled some bureaucrat-speak about 'ideals', shrugged their shoulders and moved on to discussion of creating a special use district (property tax assessment) or issuance of a bond package (increase taxes/reduce services). BTW, I was never contacted by anyone on the committee about my offer to assist.

Oh, yeah...one more thing.

The facility was never built.

Maybe you and I should start looking into what's going to happen down at UOP?

Sounds like a battle ripe for the undertaking.

T-Man, while you're not wrong when your write

the 'mindset' by facility managers/Regents/university admin. in CA as well as some schools on the East coast is to pass the cost on to the students/general public (NOT corporate or private donors), THEN LEAVE THE FEE INCREASE IN PLACE AS A DEFACTO FORM OF PERMANENT REVENUE INCREASE (TAX INCREASE).

, I can tell you the latest upgrades at UMass were funded mostly from private $$s. Friends of UMass Football raised the money for the new turf, and the lights that are being installed right now...

At least in Massachusetts, I don't think we could get another dime for football from public funds (either taxes, or student fees)...so privately raised money is the only way we will improve our facilities...

guinzone wrote:To be quite honest with you I am not an idiot. I am simply asking why on earth does MSU need a 22k seat stadium... I was unaware they were selling out their stadium right now and that their was such a need to expand... Just wondering....

2007 IAA Attendence by percent capacity

http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/2007/Interne ... PACITY.pdf

Col Hogan wrote:T-Man, while you're not wrong when your write

the 'mindset' by facility managers/Regents/university admin. in CA as well as some schools on the East coast is to pass the cost on to the students/general public (NOT corporate or private donors), THEN LEAVE THE FEE INCREASE IN PLACE AS A DEFACTO FORM OF PERMANENT REVENUE INCREASE (TAX INCREASE).

, I can tell you the latest upgrades at UMass were funded mostly from private $$s. Friends of UMass Football raised the money for the new turf, and the lights that are being installed right now...

At least in Massachusetts, I don't think we could get another dime for football from public funds (either taxes, or student fees)...so privately raised money is the only way we will improve our facilities...

I should have underlined 'SOME'. I'm not dis'ing all the East Coast schools. And from my experience, the 'motivation' for not going private isn't the same between the east and west. In the east, there's far more stagnation in facilities development. Timelines are in decades rather than years, and there's a greater number of alum who OPPOSE facility improvements to preserve 'tradition'. I.e., it's not always the funding that's the principal impediment. Unfortunately, many of those alum live in the same communities where they were born and can count on one hand the number of collegiate and professional facilities they've visited (THAT IS A DIS).
Basically, there's greater number of 'comfort zone' administrators/alum in the east than the west. For many, many reasons, obviously. Again, not a dis', but absolutely a factor when discussing attitudes about funding expansion/improvement projects.

Collegiate football is a consumer product in a saturated market. Yes there's still tradition, etc...but you wouldn't hire the old mechanic who's worked at the corner gas station for 47 years to be a team manager at Indianapolis, nor should universities rely on academic administrators or alum, whose knowledge of facility develelopment is highlighted by a 'name a brick' fundraising project for handicap seating they did 12 years earlier, to develop, fund and manage their facilities expansion. Those schools who insist on playing on natural turf fields, in stadiums with un-maintained wooden seating, with no design provisions to manage weather elements, are going to find that the best players, who HAVE visited the LSU's, FL State's, Texas A&M's and HAVE SEEN what top programs are willing to invest to support a top tier program, cannot walk into University of Northeast's 75yr old locker room with thrice painted steel lockers (with locking doors), concrete floors complete with spalling, and an equipment room that smells like some prehistoric swamp filled with decaying animals, and say to themselves they're willing to play (not "wanting", "willing") there for 4-5 years. Some of these schools even have the audacity to backcharge the student athletes for damage to, or replacement of, damaged gear resulting from normal usage (yes...I have proof. I've paid those bills).

It's simply a matter of pride. Any student-athlete who has pushed themselves beyond the average 'plane' into a D1 level performer (and virtually all here know the committment and hard work required), why would they want to attend and play for a school whose vision of the student-athlete and facility requirement is being dictated by folks who WANT to live 50 years in the past (or worse, maintain a pay-to-play mindset like some of these non-schollies who are sitting on a $1Billion+ endowment, and still charging students for every pencil and paper used.).



Jeez...i better stop now...I've got to get some work done today.

Hope your'e feeling better Col.

guinzone wrote:To be quite honest with you I am not an idiot. I am simply asking why on earth does MSU need a 22k seat stadium... I was unaware they were selling out their stadium right now and that their was such a need to expand... Just wondering....

Peace, bro. Yes, we've been selling out every game and season tickets are gone long before fall ball starts. I was looking for the link that cats 2506 posted. It's all good.

travelinman67 wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:T-Man, while you're not wrong when your write , I can tell you the latest upgrades at UMass were funded mostly from private $$s. Friends of UMass Football raised the money for the new turf, and the lights that are being installed right now...

At least in Massachusetts, I don't think we could get another dime for football from public funds (either taxes, or student fees)...so privately raised money is the only way we will improve our facilities...

I should have underlined 'SOME'. I'm not dis'ing all the East Coast schools. And from my experience, the 'motivation' for not going private isn't the same between the east and west. In the east, there's far more stagnation in facilities development. Timelines are in decades rather than years, and there's a greater number of alum who OPPOSE facility improvements to preserve 'tradition'. I.e., it's not always the funding that's the principal impediment. Unfortunately, many of those alum live in the same communities where they were born and can count on one hand the number of collegiate and professional facilities they've visited (THAT IS A DIS).
Basically, there's greater number of 'comfort zone' administrators/alum in the east than the west. For many, many reasons, obviously. Again, not a dis', but absolutely a factor when discussing attitudes about funding expansion/improvement projects.

Collegiate football is a consumer product in a saturated market. Yes there's still tradition, etc...but you wouldn't hire the old mechanic who's worked at the corner gas station for 47 years to be a team manager at Indianapolis, nor should universities rely on academic administrators or alum, whose knowledge of facility develelopment is highlighted by a 'name a brick' fundraising project for handicap seating they did 12 years earlier, to develop, fund and manage their facilities expansion. Those schools who insist on playing on natural turf fields, in stadiums with un-maintained wooden seating, with no design provisions to manage weather elements, are going to find that the best players, who HAVE visited the LSU's, FL State's, Texas A&M's and HAVE SEEN what top programs are willing to invest to support a top tier program, cannot walk into University of Northeast's 75yr old locker room with thrice painted steel lockers (with locking doors), concrete floors complete with spalling, and an equipment room that smells like some prehistoric swamp filled with decaying animals, and say to themselves they're willing to play (not "wanting", "willing") there for 4-5 years. Some of these schools even have the audacity to backcharge the student athletes for damage to, or replacement of, damaged gear resulting from normal usage (yes...I have proof. I've paid those bills).

It's simply a matter of pride. Any student-athlete who has pushed themselves beyond the average 'plane' into a D1 level performer (and virtually all here know the committment and hard work required), why would they want to attend and play for a school whose vision of the student-athlete and facility requirement is being dictated by folks who WANT to live 50 years in the past (or worse, maintain a pay-to-play mindset like some of these non-schollies who are sitting on a $1Billion+ endowment, and still charging students for every pencil and paper used.).



Jeez...i better stop now...I've got to get some work done today.

Hope your'e feeling better Col.

I did not take it as a "dis"...it's a very true statement that you made...

Just used my alma mater as an example where if we want anything done improvement-wise, alums and other private sector folks are going to have to come through...

UMass sports are an afterthought in the legislature...as very few UMass alums actually serve on Beacon Hill...long story...I had an arguement with MplsBison about this once, and I can go further into it over a drink or two later...

But...It's private or nothing (for the most part)...at UMass......

And to stop hijacking a fine thread about MSUs proposed improvements...I am officially jealous as I doubt I'll even see plans like these...never mind completion...at UMass in my lifetime...

Good Job Cats...........

Col Hogan wrote:And to stop hijacking a fine thread about MSUs proposed improvements...I am officially jealous as I doubt I'll even see plans like these...never mind completion...at UMass in my lifetime...

Good Job Cats...........

Like UMass, neither Montana university will ever receive any state money for athletic facility improvements. Montana had a 1 Billion budget surplus last biennium, but it took no time for the gov to increase the size of state government to take care of that, but there was a tax rebate to those who qualified. Hell, in Montana until the last legislative session it took the blessing of the Board of Regents to do anything as far as improving athletic facilities- now the university can 'lease' a particular facility to the university foundation so that improvements can be made (resulting in a lot less red tape, in-kind contributions of labor and materials, etc.). Once the improvements are done the lease is cancelled and the facility goes back to the university. It's a win/win situation.

I talked to a MSU alum and he told me that a large part of the $$ were already raised. From where I don't know but it has been a few years in the works already. They just made the announcement now.

putter wrote:I talked to a MSU alum and he told me that a large part of the $$ were already raised. From where I don't know but it has been a few years in the works already. They just made the announcement now.

For the whole expansion or just the boxes?

As you know, the field was paid for by the '84 team and the money for the new boxes is supposedly raised. I will have to ask him about the money for the entire expansion.