Football's future upgrades

[filbert]

Re: Football's future upgrades

I think the BOR policy only applies to the General Activity Fee--isn't that what the students voted to raise to pay for the Wellness Center? If not, disregard the remainder of my post.

I'd guess the students would be able to pass a special athletics facility fee if they really wanted to, but it would be a new fee, not something added to the general fee.

I'd also guess that the politics, both within the University and without, associated with getting such a fee implemented might be very, very interesting.

I'd also, finally, guess that USD's move to D-I might actually aid in getting such a fee implemented at both universities (i.e. the two student bodies/alumni/boosters playing off each other to make it happen).

[HoboD]

Re: Football's future upgrades

Well as a parent paying those fees for kids at State, I, and alot of other parents would have a problem increasing fees to pay for football upgrades. Wellness center is great because my students will get a direct and daily benefit. Football upgrades are fine but not paid by additional fees on the back of the student body. If they try it there are going to be alot of pissed off people.

[filbert]

Re: Football's future upgrades

Well as a parent paying those fees for kids at State, I, and alot of other parents would have a problem increasing fees to pay for football upgrades. Wellness center is great because my students will get a direct and daily benefit. Football upgrades are fine but not paid by additional fees on the back of the student body. If they try it there are going to be alot of pissed off people.

Yep, my point exactly. The politics argue against any fee increase for athletic facilities, even a fee increase that would fit into the BOR policies as currently written.

We need to come up with the money for the upgrades the old-fashioned way--via donations, big and small. That's the best way, anyway, although coming up with the (wild guess of) $50-100 million it will take to renovate/rebuild Coughlin-Alumni and build the Student Athlete Development Center/Fieldhouse will be one heck of a fundraising challenge. I suppose the SD Legislature could pass a special appropriation, but does anybody see that happening in our lifetimes?

Start saving up those pennies and dimes, people . . .

[2006gwfcchamps]

Re: Football's future upgrades

I'd guess 10 million for an indoor facility and 10 million for a top of the line end zone football facility.

By indoor facility I mean a 120 yard, full size football field with a permanent structure over it tall enough to practice punting and kicking.

Boise State built one for 9.5 million:

http://www.broncosports.com/ViewArti...;ATCLID=530884

By end zone football facility I mean a home football locker room, weight room, training room, meeting rooms, coach's offices, and possibly more.

Northern Illinois is building a very nice one for 9.5 million:

http://www3.niu.edu/athletics/aapc/a...bout_aapc.html



Why do you say 50-100 million?

[JackerRabbit]

Re: Football's future upgrades

Not that I wouldn't have any reservations about adding student fees to pay for a football facility, but I think D-I or D-II, we would and are going to have to get a new facility. Coughlin is what, almost 50 years old? Eventually it is going to have to be replaced, and I doubt we can keep using it for another 25 years as some would want. When a new facility is built, I think funding should come from a few sources.

1. Some sort of MODEST student fee.
2. City of Brookings
3. Corporate Donations
4. Alumni giving

Another possibility for funding, if we went along with those filthy yotes, may be some sort of state government funding (gasp!). Yes, that would be a nightmare and take quite a bit of work to get through, but its probably still something worth looking into.

I would also hope that the city of Brookings would pony up some money. I would think that the money brought into the local economy on game days would more than justify some sort of funding from the city (not to say that local businesses don't already donate money to athletics).

If anybody seriously thinks that we are going to be able to build a new stadium that is large enough solely on the backs of alumni, you're not really set in reality. SDSU has a lot of generous doners, and some with big dollars, but there are also a lot of mouths to feed.

[HoboD]

Re: Football's future upgrades

Two words, Luxury Boxes. These can be a very good stream of income. Essentially a condo set up. This establlishes either some upfront cash to be used to construct the stadium/improvements or in the alternative a cash stream to pay bonds. This model is used by a number of universities. Its not the whole project cost but it will certainly provide a junk of cash. 100 yards, 15 ft wide box=20 boxes. Then see what the market will bare.

[Haldersham]

Re: Football's future upgrades

Not that I wouldn't have any reservations about adding student fees to pay for a football facility, but I think D-I or D-II, we would and are going to have to get a new facility.  Coughlin is what, almost 50 years old?  Eventually it is going to have to be replaced, and I doubt we can keep using it for another 25 years as some would want.  When a new facility is built, I think funding should come from a few sources.

1.  Some sort of MODEST student fee.
2.  City of Brookings
3.  Corporate Donations
4.  Alumni giving

Another possibility for funding, if we went along with those filthy yotes, may be some sort of state government funding (gasp!).  Yes, that would be a nightmare and take quite a bit of work to get through, but its probably still something worth looking into.  

I would also hope that the city of Brookings would pony up some money.  I would think that the money brought into the local economy on game days would more than justify some sort of funding from the city (not to say that local businesses don't already donate money to athletics).

If anybody seriously thinks that we are going to be able to build a new stadium that is large enough solely on the backs of alumni, you're not really set in reality.  SDSU has a lot of generous doners, and some with big dollars, but there are also a lot of mouths to feed.    

The mention of Coughlin being nearly 50 years old really dates me as I was a high school student when when the first alumni effort in fund raising was launched namely "Staduim for State" in the mid to late 1950's. It was not a very popular move back then and for some reason the negative feelings about improving football facilities  is still out there despite the more vocal opponents from the Staduim for State days have passed on.

As I recall, once the press box and dressing rooms were added maybe by 1965, there were virually were no enchencements to speak of until the restrooms faciilties were upgraded about 1997 or1998.

Nothing else was completed and maybe efforts to do so were overshadowed by some other need such as the Performing Arts facility.

I agree we probably dont have a football passionate alum with lots of money. If we did this problem would be solved in a hurry.

With scoreboard addition, and other minor things, its a vast improvement when you compare it with the improvements made between 1965 and 1995 which were one big zilch.

I t think JackerRabbit is right on the mark about finding the rich alum, but those of us who want something better should not give up as I think our adminstration is working with the best they have. I don't think we should give up either.

I think our work with corporate sponsorships  is still probably in its infancy. We never had to rely on them too much until the SDSU foundation bought the Daktronics score boards.  

The problem with the City of Brookings is that the council went through hell and high water to get sales tax money for Swiftell building. Whether they are ripe for another controversy, I am not so sure. I think we are going to have several 15,000 crowds before this opens more eyes on the city council. I see several of the council members at games, so maybe its getting through as a message.  I also think the problem with Coughlin is its pretty much a single purpose, namely 7 at maximum home games, and until recently a few more high school games, and that is all that the use it gets except for 4th of july fire works and if anyone else can thing of other uses, please.  

We have complained about the BHS team tearing up the turf so if we want the City of Brookings to help out we best not complain as the park district paid for the lights something else I forgot to mention.

[JACKGUYII]

Re: Football's future upgrades

I think one thing to help make Coughlin be more multi-purpose and add ROI would be to add Field Turf. Then it's irrevelant how much it's used whether it's band competitions, concerts, Camps etc.

[uncbearsfan]

Re: Football's future upgrades

who's sdsu's big booster? We at UNC are blessed to have the Monfort family. They owned one of the largest meat packing plants in the west and currently the Monfort brothers own the Colorado Rockies. They really donated the most money for Nottingham field and have contributed to a lot since then.

Going back to the student fees. I don't think it's all that bad as long as it's voted on by the students.

[GoJacks]

Re: Football's future upgrades

I was wondering what others thought of the possibility of some sort of roof cover for the seats. This seems to keep SDSU football outdoors, while allowing less exposure from Mother Nature. If done to the west side (the sun is usually behind the stadium making these bleachers shaded) my guess it would have to go something like Grandstand (tier one), Box seats and luxury boxes (tier 2), press box, coaches boxes, president box for visiting team (nice touch) (tier 3) and then the covered roof. This could keep attendance at 10-12k in inclement weather. Add the artificial turf and maybe it is enough for the SDHSAA to consider something other than the Dakota Dome for the H.S. School championships. Here are some examples from other stadiums.

University of Washington - Husky Stadium
http://gohuskies.cstv.com/facilities/husky-stadium.html

University of Oregon - Autzen Stadium and Haywood Field (track)
http://www.goducks.com/ViewArticle.d...p;ATCLID=22175
http://www.goducks.com/ViewArticle.d...p;ATCLID=22187

Oregon State University - Reser Stadium
http://www.osubeavers.com/ViewArticl...;ATCLID=131119

Humboldt State Univeristy - Redwood Bowl
http://hsujacks.com/athletics/redwoodbowl.html

[mitchell2006]

Re: Football's future upgrades

I know this is a longshot but if Coughlin ever goes through a major renovation or a completly new field is built would a new track be added?

[valleyrabbit]

Re: Football's future upgrades

I know this is a longshot but if Coughlin ever goes through a major renovation or a completly new field is built would a new track be added?

I hope not. A track moves the fans away from the game and decreases the value of the seats. There is plenty of land on the north side of campus to build a track. The stands need to be as close to the field as possible.

[propar80]

Re: Football's future upgrades

I know this is a longshot but if Coughlin ever goes through a major renovation or a completly new field is built would a new track be added?

NOOOOOO.  The only thing worse than a track around a football field is a dome over and around a football field. ;D

[jacksfaninne]

Re: Football's future upgrades

[quote author=mitchell2006 link=1165242043/60#70 date=1169242571]I know this is a longshot but if Coughlin ever goes through a major renovation or a completly new field is built would a new track be added?

NOOOOOO. The only thing worse than a track around a football field is a dome over and around a football field. ;D[/quote]

Nothing says high school like a track around your football field.

[JimmyJack]

Re: Football's future upgrades

[quote author=mitchell2006 link=1165242043/60#70 date=1169242571]I know this is a longshot but if Coughlin ever goes through a major renovation or a completly new field is built would a new track be added?

I hope not. A track moves the fans away from the game and decreases the value of the seats. There is plenty of land on the north side of campus to build a track. The stands need to be as close to the field as possible.
[/quote]


I agree. I hate Howard Wood for many reasons... but one is the distance from the stands to the field.