Coughlin rough drafts

[master_rabbit]

Re: Coughlin rough drafts

They do in the sense that if SDSU is able to host indoor track meets, possibly even the Summit League Indoor Conference meet, then teams have to pay entry fees in order to compete.

Field houses don’t generate revenue

[HoboJack]

Re: Coughlin rough drafts

They also do in the sense that Student-athletes in the non-revenue sports are more likely to become sponsoring Alumni if they feel properly appreciated as a student athletes. I have spoken to several former T&F athletes who told me their Alumni sponsorship to SDSU would not go to athletics, since they were often left to feel like second-class citizens by the athletic department in regards to priority access to facilities, etc. This fieldhouse would have a HUGE impact on those non-revenue sports (T&F, Baseball, Softball, Tennis, Soccer, etc.).

[LakeJack]

Re: Coughlin rough drafts

Don't get me wrong I want a field house too, but it won't generate revenue. The Stadium will help pay for itself the field house funding will be like the Dykhouse Center. Hobo Jack maybe the T&F alumni should step up to the plate now to help get the project started rather then wait until it done. I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Coughlin rough drafts

The ROI between the two is not close. One can help the other become a reality.

[Nidaros]

Re: Coughlin rough drafts

Don't get me wrong I want a field house too, but it won't generate revenue.

Why should revenue be a major consideration, when the purpose of the field house is to provide facilities for those sports who provide very little revenue, but are important to the insitutution, such as track and field. Baseball will now have a place to work out in when weather is bad. Even football has a practice facility indoors. The list of reasons goes on and on. If you want more revenue, then you have to expect higher admission prices for the big revenue sports. Also revenue comes from donors like you and me. Anyone with a boat to shine should be able to afford a membership in the Jackrabbit Club. End of Rant.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Coughlin rough drafts

I have spoken to several former T&F athletes who told me their Alumni sponsorship to SDSU would not go to athletics, since they were often left to feel like second-class citizens by the athletic department in regards to priority access to facilities, etc.

I'm not saying its right, but this statement would likely be true at 90% of DI institutions.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Coughlin rough drafts

I think one reason why it should be considered is that the stadium can generate revenue that will help get a field house in place. And not just game day revenue, I think it will be easier to sell donors on contributing to a field house when they see a new stadium. I don't think the "sale" would be as easy the other way around.

[LakeJack]

Re: Coughlin rough drafts

Why should revenue be a major consideration, when the purpose of the field house is to provide facilities for those sports who provide very little revenue, but are important to the insitutution, such as track and field. Baseball will now have a place to work out in when weather is bad. Even football has a practice facility indoors. The list of reasons goes on and on. If you want more revenue, then you have to expect higher admission prices for the big revenue sports. Also revenue comes from donors like you and me. Anyone with a boat to shine should be able to afford a membership in the Jackrabbit Club. End of Rant.

Nidaros,

I think one reason why it should be considered is that the stadium can generate revenue that will help get a field house in place. And not just game day revenue, I think it will be easier to sell donors on contributing to a field house when they see a new stadium. I don't think the "sale" would be as easy the other way around.

what he said

[Nidaros]

Re: Coughlin rough drafts

I think one reason why it should be considered is that the stadium can generate revenue that will help get a field house in place. And not just game day revenue, I think it will be easier to sell donors on contributing to a field house when they see a new stadium. I don't think the "sale" would be as easy the other way around.

So how many years do we need to impress donors on the field facility? A whole bunch, me thinks. Unless attitudes have changed since the 1950's, the staduim in itself is going to be a hard sell. Just getting to first base on the staduim project will take some real know-how.
None of these projects are going to pay for themself through ticket revenue. What is our dollar budget for football alone?
Looks like the sport in itself will suck up most of the ticket revenue.

[LakeJack]

Re: Coughlin rough drafts

Think suite rev. way different thne in the '50s

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Coughlin rough drafts

Wonder what kind of shadow that fieldhouse will cast on the softball field?

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Coughlin rough drafts

Always interesting to read all the viewpoints (with everybody having an axe to grind one way or the other). I've posted these same comments several times on different threads, to wit:

1) The Field House is not a revenue generating facility, but in an odd way that is exactly why it is a priority. It will have to be completely donor funded, since there are no revenue opportunities (as in the stadium) to help pay off bonds. If we tie up available large donors right now on the stadium, we will never get a field house built. And I will contend that it is the most important, because all sports will benefit in recruiting when we have an indoor practice facility for all the outdoor sports. And we currently have to compete for athletes against other conference opponents who have the necessary facilities.

2. Having said the above, the stadium project can move forward at the same time as donor solicitations for the field house, since it is a much bigger project, requires more advance work, and has multiple ways to pay off bonds (donors, corporate support, concessions, ticket revenues, etc.)

3. In the end, it won't matter what we think or say on this board. I know that the department recognizes all of the factors noted above, and is pursuing both in the right way IMO and is certainly not sitting around twiddling their thumbs on both projects. I believe there is a good chance we may hear some news on the Field House in the not-too-distant future.

[zooropa]

Re: Coughlin rough drafts

Those remarks, from one who's in a position to know, ought to end the subject................. but since this is the internet..................

[Nidaros]

Re: Coughlin rough drafts

Always interesting to read all the viewpoints (with everybody having an axe to grind one way or the other). I've posted these same comments several times on different threads, to wit:

1) The Field House is not a revenue generating facility, but in an odd way that is exactly why it is a priority. It will have to be completely donor funded, since there are no revenue opportunities (as in the stadium) to help pay off bonds. If we tie up available large donors right now on the stadium, we will never get a field house built. And I will contend that it is the most important, because all sports will benefit in recruiting when we have an indoor practice facility for all the outdoor sports. And we currently have to compete for athletes against other conference opponents who have the necessary facilities.

2. Having said the above, the stadium project can move forward at the same time as donor solicitations for the field house, since it is a much bigger project, requires more advance work, and has multiple ways to pay off bonds (donors, corporate support, concessions, ticket revenues, etc.)

3. In the end, it won't matter what we think or say on this board. I know that the department recognizes all of the factors noted above, and is pursuing both in the right way IMO and is certainly not sitting around twiddling their thumbs on both projects. I believe there is a good chance we may hear some news on the Field House in the not-too-distant future.

Thanks Jack#1 Fan. Your wisdom never ends when it comes to goings on at SDSU.

[JackrabbitGuy]

Re: Coughlin rough drafts

I made the jump to the Crawford Architects website, in the project detail it stated as one of the improvements as "New Turf" - Not that it is a surprise, but looks like we will eventually move to field turf, along with a really KICK ASS new stadium.
I wish we could jump ahead 5-10 years to have this stadium, good stuff.

The "New Turf" reference doesn't necessarily mean that the decision has been made to move to field turf. This reference could also be referring to a new grass playing surface (aka - natural turf) or a synthetic surface of some kind (aka - artificial turf or field turf).