(07-09-2014 03:58 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 07:04 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 07:58 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  Ehh... 10 yrs/$15MM is not a lot of money at all. Actually a pretty big statement that UH football is small time.

Houston fans are saying it is the largest college football stadium naming deal in history, anywhere. Tweeted by at least one sportswriter, too, I think. Most college stadiums have no naming rights at all.

Yeah the reason most places don't have naming rights deals at all is b/c this amount of money simply isn't worth the loss of brand equity. Its the same reason schools like Harvard and Stanford don't name most of their colleges (e.g. Harvard Law School/Stanford Graduate School of Business v. Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law). The value of being able to name your stadium something identifiable with the school brand or preserving the rights for a very, very big alumnus donor much out outweighs $1.5MM/yr at most major programs.

If we were to ever get our own stadium, any naming rights deal in the $1-2MM/yr range should be for the field. I would hope that a deal for the actual stadium would fetch at least $4-5MM/yr. Otherwise, might as well keep it ourselves.

$1MM is pretty standard for yearly naming rights. $4-5? No way.

Oh, and tons of top schools have their colleges named something else. The Harvard & Stanford examples are true, and are #1 & #2 in ranking (business school wise, didn't look up others), but aside from Columbia and Yale as well, every other school in the top 20+ have their college named after someone/something. It's actually more common for that to occur than not.

(07-09-2014 03:38 PM)biguofmfan Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:19 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:28 AM)biguofmfan Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:18 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 12:07 AM)biguofmfan Wrote:  Please do not get carried away with Houston's shiny new tin can. If Memphis goes this route, they will end up in the same place as Houston. That is, being left out of a super conference in the future.

Tiger fans who want this or any similar type of on-campus stadium are only interested in fan amenities and not what is in the best interest of the program moving forward. If Memphis wants to be in the Big 12 someday, then we are better off making comparisons with teams already in the Big 12 like Baylor or even Oklahoma, not Houston.

Memphis needs to either spend ~$200 - $350 million on Liberty Bowl improvements OR ~$400 million + on a new domed stadium either at the fairgrounds or downtown. 55K seat capacity minimum either way. Anything short of this and the University risks being left out of any super conference.

If lack of funds is allowed to be an excuse, then there is no point in even trying. If fans' short-term desires are put ahead of an aggressive master plan with long-term goals in mind, then no one can blame Fuente when he either fails here or leaves for any job marginally higher on the totem pole.

Most schools already in the Big 12 are looking for any excuse to invite Memphis and Cincinnati. Any last shred of doubt can be eliminated by making a statement that Memphis is serious. Bottom line, going the cheap route like Houston gives Texas another reason to say no. Making this mistake would be a disaster as we would go from being a basketball school to essentially a basketball-only school.

With that said, I am convinced that the new president, Bowen, and Fuente understand this and are willing to get us there with no expense spared. The future seems to be very bright, but it won't be if Memphians are afraid or lack the collective self-esteem to do what it takes and end up settling for something seemingly "good enough."

You start by saying not to get carried away, and then you go completely off your rocker.

What Houston is doing is not impressive and is not worth Memphis' consideration. On the other hand, what Memphis can do to better itself is not only important at this critical time (as most of us are aware), but requires a sense of urgency. A sense of urgency RC Johnson apparently did not have - it would have been helpful if he had literally gotten off his rocker.

It's not impressive? They are spending $120 million. IF we spent $120 million and came up with $15 million for naming rights over 10 years; and then another $15 million over the next 10 years, we would build a beautiful OCS.

What Memphis can do to better itself? We have GREAT leadership at the helm and the answer is nothing that compares to a $120 million OCS; not even close.

TCU got into the Big 12 with average facilities and a small stadium. USF and UCF got into what was a very good Big East before us, with no pedigree and average facilities and tradition.

Your answer is to spend $400 million to compete with Oklahoma. That is nothing short of delusional.

If in the future Memphis moves forward with plans to do what TCU did to their stadium, they will spend over ~$200 million adjusted for inflation. The Oklahoma example is the high end but would achieve the same desired result. On the other hand, going the cheap route like Houston is the only plan that provides Memphis with a zero chance at the Big 12.

Stop relying on name-calling; from what I have observed, this is becoming typical behavior for you; absolutely ridiculous. I think you are wrong, but I am not being rude about it.

But the Liberty bowl is not the property of the university. It is city property run by the city & the city will NEVER spend $200M to improve the stadium. If our university officials allow Memphis politicians to get hold of university funding to improve the Liberty bowl stadium then I & many other university supporters will have lost all faith in the university to maintain any independence from the city. Thereafter the university will continue to be seen in the same light as the city by those making conference decisions - it won't be a good thing and won't beget P5 membership.

(07-09-2014 05:46 PM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:58 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 07:04 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 07:58 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  Ehh... 10 yrs/$15MM is not a lot of money at all. Actually a pretty big statement that UH football is small time.

Houston fans are saying it is the largest college football stadium naming deal in history, anywhere. Tweeted by at least one sportswriter, too, I think. Most college stadiums have no naming rights at all.

Yeah the reason most places don't have naming rights deals at all is b/c this amount of money simply isn't worth the loss of brand equity. Its the same reason schools like Harvard and Stanford don't name most of their colleges (e.g. Harvard Law School/Stanford Graduate School of Business v. Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law). The value of being able to name your stadium something identifiable with the school brand or preserving the rights for a very, very big alumnus donor much out outweighs $1.5MM/yr at most major programs.

If we were to ever get our own stadium, any naming rights deal in the $1-2MM/yr range should be for the field. I would hope that a deal for the actual stadium would fetch at least $4-5MM/yr. Otherwise, might as well keep it ourselves.

$1MM is pretty standard for yearly naming rights. $4-5? No way.

Oh, and tons of top schools have their colleges named something else. The Harvard & Stanford examples are true, and are #1 & #2 in ranking (business school wise, didn't look up others), but aside from Columbia and Yale as well, every other school in the top 20+ have their college named after someone/something. It's actually more common for that to occur than not.

I'm aware, that was just a brand equity example. I just can't imagine any major program, unless it was really financially struggling, giving up naming rights to a corporation for a brand new stadium for such a small amount. Calling our new stadium "Memphis Stadium" or "Tiger Stadium" is worth far more than 1.5MM/yr The fact that $4-5MM is more realistic right now is exactly why we are going to see the trend in field naming rights. Recent example:

UC-Berkeley Kabam Field $18MM/15yrs

(07-09-2014 12:07 AM)biguofmfan Wrote:  Please do not get carried away with Houston's shiny new tin can. If Memphis goes this route, they will end up in the same place as Houston. That is, being left out of a super conference in the future.

Tiger fans who want this or any similar type of on-campus stadium are only interested in fan amenities and not what is in the best interest of the program moving forward. If Memphis wants to be in the Big 12 someday, then we are better off making comparisons with teams already in the Big 12 like Baylor or even Oklahoma, not Houston.

Memphis needs to either spend ~$200 - $350 million on Liberty Bowl improvements OR ~$400 million + on a new domed stadium either at the fairgrounds or downtown. 55K seat capacity minimum either way. Anything short of this and the University risks being left out of any super conference.

no
No
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO!
NO!

(07-09-2014 06:46 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:38 PM)biguofmfan Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:19 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:28 AM)biguofmfan Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:18 AM)Stammers Wrote:  You start by saying not to get carried away, and then you go completely off your rocker.

What Houston is doing is not impressive and is not worth Memphis' consideration. On the other hand, what Memphis can do to better itself is not only important at this critical time (as most of us are aware), but requires a sense of urgency. A sense of urgency RC Johnson apparently did not have - it would have been helpful if he had literally gotten off his rocker.

It's not impressive? They are spending $120 million. IF we spent $120 million and came up with $15 million for naming rights over 10 years; and then another $15 million over the next 10 years, we would build a beautiful OCS.

What Memphis can do to better itself? We have GREAT leadership at the helm and the answer is nothing that compares to a $120 million OCS; not even close.

TCU got into the Big 12 with average facilities and a small stadium. USF and UCF got into what was a very good Big East before us, with no pedigree and average facilities and tradition.

Your answer is to spend $400 million to compete with Oklahoma. That is nothing short of delusional.

If in the future Memphis moves forward with plans to do what TCU did to their stadium, they will spend over ~$200 million adjusted for inflation. The Oklahoma example is the high end but would achieve the same desired result. On the other hand, going the cheap route like Houston is the only plan that provides Memphis with a zero chance at the Big 12.

Stop relying on name-calling; from what I have observed, this is becoming typical behavior for you; absolutely ridiculous. I think you are wrong, but I am not being rude about it.

But the Liberty bowl is not the property of the university. It is city property run by the city & the city will NEVER spend $200M to improve the stadium. If our university officials allow Memphis politicians to get hold of university funding to improve the Liberty bowl stadium then I & many other university supporters will have lost all faith in the university to maintain any independence from the city. Thereafter the university will continue to be seen in the same light as the city by those making conference decisions - it won't be a good thing and won't beget P5 membership.

^^^this - The city is in permanent fiscal crisis mode. Don't get your hopes up about much more being done with LBS other than maintenance projects (HOPEFULLY treading water type projects). The city is not the "good buddy" of the university. We have played that game for far too long.

(07-09-2014 03:58 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 07:04 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 07:58 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  Ehh... 10 yrs/$15MM is not a lot of money at all. Actually a pretty big statement that UH football is small time.

Houston fans are saying it is the largest college football stadium naming deal in history, anywhere. Tweeted by at least one sportswriter, too, I think. Most college stadiums have no naming rights at all.

Yeah the reason most places don't have naming rights deals at all is b/c this amount of money simply isn't worth the loss of brand equity. Its the same reason schools like Harvard and Stanford don't name most of their colleges (e.g. Harvard Law School/Stanford Graduate School of Business v. Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law). The value of being able to name your stadium something identifiable with the school brand or preserving the rights for a very, very big alumnus donor much out outweighs $1.5MM/yr at most major programs.

If we were to ever get our own stadium, any naming rights deal in the $1-2MM/yr range should be for the field. I would hope that a deal for the actual stadium would fetch at least $4-5MM/yr. Otherwise, might as well keep it ourselves.

You are hilarious. Name a college team that gets that much money for naming rights. Amazing.

(07-10-2014 12:00 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:58 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  Yeah the reason most places don't have naming rights deals at all is b/c this amount of money simply isn't worth the loss of brand equity. Its the same reason schools like Harvard and Stanford don't name most of their colleges (e.g. Harvard Law School/Stanford Graduate School of Business v. Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law). The value of being able to name your stadium something identifiable with the school brand or preserving the rights for a very, very big alumnus donor much out outweighs $1.5MM/yr at most major programs.

If we were to ever get our own stadium, any naming rights deal in the $1-2MM/yr range should be for the field. I would hope that a deal for the actual stadium would fetch at least $4-5MM/yr. Otherwise, might as well keep it ourselves.

You are hilarious. Name a college team that gets that much money for naming rights. Amazing.

Did you not read? That's exactly my point. Hardly any programs sell the rights because what you get isn't worth the loss of brand equity (and the ones that did sell the rights did so around the recession in the early 2000s). As a result, we shouldn't sell the naming rights for our theoretical stadium UNLESS we were getting an amount larger than what the few teams that have done it get now.

(07-10-2014 07:05 AM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 12:00 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:58 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  Yeah the reason most places don't have naming rights deals at all is b/c this amount of money simply isn't worth the loss of brand equity. Its the same reason schools like Harvard and Stanford don't name most of their colleges (e.g. Harvard Law School/Stanford Graduate School of Business v. Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law). The value of being able to name your stadium something identifiable with the school brand or preserving the rights for a very, very big alumnus donor much out outweighs $1.5MM/yr at most major programs.

If we were to ever get our own stadium, any naming rights deal in the $1-2MM/yr range should be for the field. I would hope that a deal for the actual stadium would fetch at least $4-5MM/yr. Otherwise, might as well keep it ourselves.

You are hilarious. Name a college team that gets that much money for naming rights. Amazing.

Did you not read? That's exactly my point. Hardly any programs sell the rights because what you get isn't worth the loss of brand equity (and the ones that did sell the rights did so around the recession in the early 2000s). As a result, we shouldn't sell the naming rights for our theoretical stadium UNLESS we were getting an amount larger than what the few teams that have done it get now.

Syracuse
Texas Tech
UCF
Louisville
Maryland
Minnesota
Wake Forest
Rutgers

Before the changes in recent years the LB was known as a mostly rotting, outdated relic. We didn't even have our logo on the field up until a few years ago, and the city wouldn't even acknowledge it as belonging to us. To state that the LB name and brand is worth more than $1.5 million per year doesn't make any sense at all. We need every dime of revenue we can get.

(07-10-2014 10:35 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 07:05 AM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 12:00 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:58 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  Yeah the reason most places don't have naming rights deals at all is b/c this amount of money simply isn't worth the loss of brand equity. Its the same reason schools like Harvard and Stanford don't name most of their colleges (e.g. Harvard Law School/Stanford Graduate School of Business v. Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law). The value of being able to name your stadium something identifiable with the school brand or preserving the rights for a very, very big alumnus donor much out outweighs $1.5MM/yr at most major programs.

If we were to ever get our own stadium, any naming rights deal in the $1-2MM/yr range should be for the field. I would hope that a deal for the actual stadium would fetch at least $4-5MM/yr. Otherwise, might as well keep it ourselves.

You are hilarious. Name a college team that gets that much money for naming rights. Amazing.

Did you not read? That's exactly my point. Hardly any programs sell the rights because what you get isn't worth the loss of brand equity (and the ones that did sell the rights did so around the recession in the early 2000s). As a result, we shouldn't sell the naming rights for our theoretical stadium UNLESS we were getting an amount larger than what the few teams that have done it get now.

Syracuse
Texas Tech
UCF
Louisville
Maryland
Minnesota
Wake Forest
Rutgers

Before the changes in recent years the LB was known as a mostly rotting, outdated relic. We didn't even have our logo on the field up until a few years ago, and the city wouldn't even acknowledge it as belonging to us. To state that the LB name and brand is worth more than $1.5 million per year doesn't make any sense at all. We need every dime of revenue we can get.

Syracuse isn't really a football stadium per se, Maryland is actually a field naming rights deal, and Rutgers was having financial struggles. I'll give you the rest but thats still a real small number

I agree with you for the LB. I'm just talking about this hypothetical $100MM+ other posters are envisioning.

(07-10-2014 12:48 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 10:35 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 07:05 AM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 12:00 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:58 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  Yeah the reason most places don't have naming rights deals at all is b/c this amount of money simply isn't worth the loss of brand equity. Its the same reason schools like Harvard and Stanford don't name most of their colleges (e.g. Harvard Law School/Stanford Graduate School of Business v. Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law). The value of being able to name your stadium something identifiable with the school brand or preserving the rights for a very, very big alumnus donor much out outweighs $1.5MM/yr at most major programs.

If we were to ever get our own stadium, any naming rights deal in the $1-2MM/yr range should be for the field. I would hope that a deal for the actual stadium would fetch at least $4-5MM/yr. Otherwise, might as well keep it ourselves.

You are hilarious. Name a college team that gets that much money for naming rights. Amazing.

Did you not read? That's exactly my point. Hardly any programs sell the rights because what you get isn't worth the loss of brand equity (and the ones that did sell the rights did so around the recession in the early 2000s). As a result, we shouldn't sell the naming rights for our theoretical stadium UNLESS we were getting an amount larger than what the few teams that have done it get now.

Syracuse
Texas Tech
UCF
Louisville
Maryland
Minnesota
Wake Forest
Rutgers

Before the changes in recent years the LB was known as a mostly rotting, outdated relic. We didn't even have our logo on the field up until a few years ago, and the city wouldn't even acknowledge it as belonging to us. To state that the LB name and brand is worth more than $1.5 million per year doesn't make any sense at all. We need every dime of revenue we can get.

Syracuse isn't really a football stadium per se, Maryland is actually a field naming rights deal, and Rutgers was having financial struggles. I'll give you the rest but thats still a real small number

I agree with you for the LB. I'm just talking about this hypothetical $100MM+ other posters are envisioning.

I agree that if you're in a conference getting $25 million per year in tv money; it might not be that enticing. In our situation, and even if we get into the Big 12; we would do it in a heartbeat and it would be good for us.

(07-09-2014 09:28 AM)biguofmfan Wrote:  What Houston is doing is not impressive and is not worth Memphis' consideration. On the other hand, what Memphis can do to better itself is not only important at this critical time (as most of us are aware), but requires a sense of urgency. A sense of urgency RC Johnson apparently did not have - it would have been helpful if he had literally gotten off his rocker.

I'm sorry but I have to agree 100% with the posters who say you are wrong. Forget the fact that Memphis competes directly against Houston on the field and has so for a while now; most people believe that conference realignment is not over now and Memphis is going to find themselves in direct competition with Houston for any spot the Big XII has to offer. Having a brand new, state of the art on-campus facility helps in every possible way, from day to day operations to long term planning. Recruiting, hiring coaches, game day operations, financial concerns, game day experience - it's all completely upgraded now.

Memphis has been consistently overlooked for decades now for the simple reason that they have always been doubted about their overall commitment to the football team. Houston, I would argue, fell into that same position and got stung with it when the SWC fell apart. They played their games in the Astrodome and had Heisman trophy winners going to the Cotton Bowl and they still couldn't draw flies - that whole 'commuter school' thing dragged them down. Only they've chosen to do something about it now and while the conference as a whole benefits from a member fixing a problem it's going to hurt if they use it to go to greener pastures, which I'm sure they will if they get the chance - thanks, in part, to a new stadium.

(07-10-2014 05:31 PM)SMUleopold Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:28 AM)biguofmfan Wrote:  What Houston is doing is not impressive and is not worth Memphis' consideration. On the other hand, what Memphis can do to better itself is not only important at this critical time (as most of us are aware), but requires a sense of urgency. A sense of urgency RC Johnson apparently did not have - it would have been helpful if he had literally gotten off his rocker.

I'm sorry but I have to agree 100% with the posters who say you are wrong. Forget the fact that Memphis competes directly against Houston on the field and has so for a while now; most people believe that conference realignment is not over now and Memphis is going to find themselves in direct competition with Houston for any spot the Big XII has to offer. Having a brand new, state of the art on-campus facility helps in every possible way, from day to day operations to long term planning. Recruiting, hiring coaches, game day operations, financial concerns, game day experience - it's all completely upgraded now.

Memphis has been consistently overlooked for decades now for the simple reason that they have always been doubted about their overall commitment to the football team. Houston, I would argue, fell into that same position and got stung with it when the SWC fell apart. They played their games in the Astrodome and had Heisman trophy winners going to the Cotton Bowl and they still couldn't draw flies - that whole 'commuter school' thing dragged them down. Only they've chosen to do something about it now and while the conference as a whole benefits from a member fixing a problem it's going to hurt if they use it to go to greener pastures, which I'm sure they will if they get the chance.

Game, set, match!!! It's an arms race and resting on a parking lot that the city made as a peace keeping measure. The revenue streams are available and it can be done and we don't need a friggin' money tree. Schools with far less resources than Memphis have made it happen. The "money is not there" argument is simply not true.

(07-10-2014 05:31 PM)SMUleopold Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:28 AM)biguofmfan Wrote:  What Houston is doing is not impressive and is not worth Memphis' consideration. On the other hand, what Memphis can do to better itself is not only important at this critical time (as most of us are aware), but requires a sense of urgency. A sense of urgency RC Johnson apparently did not have - it would have been helpful if he had literally gotten off his rocker.

I'm sorry but I have to agree 100% with the posters who say you are wrong. Forget the fact that Memphis competes directly against Houston on the field and has so for a while now; most people believe that conference realignment is not over now and Memphis is going to find themselves in direct competition with Houston for any spot the Big XII has to offer. Having a brand new, state of the art on-campus facility helps in every possible way, from day to day operations to long term planning. Recruiting, hiring coaches, game day operations, financial concerns, game day experience - it's all completely upgraded now.

Memphis has been consistently overlooked for decades now for the simple reason that they have always been doubted about their overall commitment to the football team. Houston, I would argue, fell into that same position and got stung with it when the SWC fell apart. They played their games in the Astrodome and had Heisman trophy winners going to the Cotton Bowl and they still couldn't draw flies - that whole 'commuter school' thing dragged them down. Only they've chosen to do something about it now and while the conference as a whole benefits from a member fixing a problem it's going to hurt if they use it to go to greener pastures, which I'm sure they will if they get the chance.

Thanks for your post. I appreciate that we can debate amicably. +2 for you, friend.

You may not have read all of my posts in conjunction, however, because I think you may have missed my point. You and I are essentially saying the same thing. I am also one of those people who thinks conference realignment is not over; super conferences seem inevitable.

My point is that I don't think what Houston is doing is enough. I think Memphis should do a lot more than what Houston has done.

It may be impossible to spend a few hundred million dollars for Memphis, which is why some think I'm delusional. But if you want a stadium that makes you competitive in this discussion of realignment, whether on- or off-campus (both have advantages), then you have to spend the above-referenced amount of money. A new stadium anywhere in Memphis will cost almost $400M if done right (i.e. Minnesota). While a lot of what I am saying is my own opinion, the numbers are just facts. The OCS-only people are just trying to be argumentative.

(07-10-2014 05:43 PM)eltigre Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:31 PM)SMUleopold Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:28 AM)biguofmfan Wrote:  What Houston is doing is not impressive and is not worth Memphis' consideration. On the other hand, what Memphis can do to better itself is not only important at this critical time (as most of us are aware), but requires a sense of urgency. A sense of urgency RC Johnson apparently did not have - it would have been helpful if he had literally gotten off his rocker.

I'm sorry but I have to agree 100% with the posters who say you are wrong. Forget the fact that Memphis competes directly against Houston on the field and has so for a while now; most people believe that conference realignment is not over now and Memphis is going to find themselves in direct competition with Houston for any spot the Big XII has to offer. Having a brand new, state of the art on-campus facility helps in every possible way, from day to day operations to long term planning. Recruiting, hiring coaches, game day operations, financial concerns, game day experience - it's all completely upgraded now.

Memphis has been consistently overlooked for decades now for the simple reason that they have always been doubted about their overall commitment to the football team. Houston, I would argue, fell into that same position and got stung with it when the SWC fell apart. They played their games in the Astrodome and had Heisman trophy winners going to the Cotton Bowl and they still couldn't draw flies - that whole 'commuter school' thing dragged them down. Only they've chosen to do something about it now and while the conference as a whole benefits from a member fixing a problem it's going to hurt if they use it to go to greener pastures, which I'm sure they will if they get the chance.

Game, set, match!!! It's an arms race and resting on a parking lot that the city made as a peace keeping measure. The revenue streams are available and it can be done and we don't need a friggin' money tree. Schools with far less resources than Memphis have made it happen. The "money is not there" argument is simply not true.

I Agree 100%. I don't care where the stadium is, whether on- or off- campus, or if LB improvements are considered best. I just want an investment that shows that Memphis is serious. You are right - money is not as big an issue as others want to argue and shouldn't be an excuse regardless. I just don't think Houston's statement goes far enough IMO.

(07-10-2014 05:51 PM)biguofmfan Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:43 PM)eltigre Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:31 PM)SMUleopold Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:28 AM)biguofmfan Wrote:  What Houston is doing is not impressive and is not worth Memphis' consideration. On the other hand, what Memphis can do to better itself is not only important at this critical time (as most of us are aware), but requires a sense of urgency. A sense of urgency RC Johnson apparently did not have - it would have been helpful if he had literally gotten off his rocker.

I'm sorry but I have to agree 100% with the posters who say you are wrong. Forget the fact that Memphis competes directly against Houston on the field and has so for a while now; most people believe that conference realignment is not over now and Memphis is going to find themselves in direct competition with Houston for any spot the Big XII has to offer. Having a brand new, state of the art on-campus facility helps in every possible way, from day to day operations to long term planning. Recruiting, hiring coaches, game day operations, financial concerns, game day experience - it's all completely upgraded now.

Memphis has been consistently overlooked for decades now for the simple reason that they have always been doubted about their overall commitment to the football team. Houston, I would argue, fell into that same position and got stung with it when the SWC fell apart. They played their games in the Astrodome and had Heisman trophy winners going to the Cotton Bowl and they still couldn't draw flies - that whole 'commuter school' thing dragged them down. Only they've chosen to do something about it now and while the conference as a whole benefits from a member fixing a problem it's going to hurt if they use it to go to greener pastures, which I'm sure they will if they get the chance.

Game, set, match!!! It's an arms race and resting on a parking lot that the city made as a peace keeping measure. The revenue streams are available and it can be done and we don't need a friggin' money tree. Schools with far less resources than Memphis have made it happen. The "money is not there" argument is simply not true.

I Agree 100%. I don't care where the stadium is, whether on- or off- campus, or if LB improvements are considered best. I just want an investment that shows that Memphis is serious. You are right -money is not as big an issue as others want to argue and shouldn't be an excuse regardless. I just don't think Houston's statement goes far enough IMO.

You should care where the stadium is, who owns it and controls the revenues. If OC, our university owns, controls & benefits from the revenues. This is very important & substantial financially. Maybe more important to the P5 decision-makers is the commitment to FB that an OC stadium would demonstrate (not to mention the boost in alumni support & involvement that would follow). At this point the recent cosmetic changes to the LB can easily be discounted in comparison to what other schools have done, are doing & are planning to do. The city of Memphis would not have zealously controlled the stadium that our university plays in since building Crump Stadium unless it benefited the city as a first priority. And the city has maintained that control even in the face of poor financial and physical management by arm twisting the major supporters of our university who have to maintain a good relationship with the city politicians in order to conduct business. Further Memphis elected politicians have been a part of the city first mentality by exerting influence in how facilities funding is administered to our university. And this has been the pattern since the 1930s! If you don't believe it, look no further than how every other school in the state receives sports facilities funding versus our university. And as long as it continues, our university will play the step-child in receiving state funding and in how sports facilities funding is channeled into Memphis rather than directly to our university.

(07-10-2014 08:57 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:51 PM)biguofmfan Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:43 PM)eltigre Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:31 PM)SMUleopold Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:28 AM)biguofmfan Wrote:  What Houston is doing is not impressive and is not worth Memphis' consideration. On the other hand, what Memphis can do to better itself is not only important at this critical time (as most of us are aware), but requires a sense of urgency. A sense of urgency RC Johnson apparently did not have - it would have been helpful if he had literally gotten off his rocker.

I'm sorry but I have to agree 100% with the posters who say you are wrong. Forget the fact that Memphis competes directly against Houston on the field and has so for a while now; most people believe that conference realignment is not over now and Memphis is going to find themselves in direct competition with Houston for any spot the Big XII has to offer. Having a brand new, state of the art on-campus facility helps in every possible way, from day to day operations to long term planning. Recruiting, hiring coaches, game day operations, financial concerns, game day experience - it's all completely upgraded now.

Memphis has been consistently overlooked for decades now for the simple reason that they have always been doubted about their overall commitment to the football team. Houston, I would argue, fell into that same position and got stung with it when the SWC fell apart. They played their games in the Astrodome and had Heisman trophy winners going to the Cotton Bowl and they still couldn't draw flies - that whole 'commuter school' thing dragged them down. Only they've chosen to do something about it now and while the conference as a whole benefits from a member fixing a problem it's going to hurt if they use it to go to greener pastures, which I'm sure they will if they get the chance.

Game, set, match!!! It's an arms race and resting on a parking lot that the city made as a peace keeping measure. The revenue streams are available and it can be done and we don't need a friggin' money tree. Schools with far less resources than Memphis have made it happen. The "money is not there" argument is simply not true.

I Agree 100%. I don't care where the stadium is, whether on- or off- campus, or if LB improvements are considered best. I just want an investment that shows that Memphis is serious. You are right -money is not as big an issue as others want to argue and shouldn't be an excuse regardless. I just don't think Houston's statement goes far enough IMO.

You should care where the stadium is, who owns it and controls the revenues. If OC, our university owns, controls & benefits from the revenues. This is very important & substantial financially. Maybe more important to the P5 decision-makers is the commitment to FB that an OC stadium would demonstrate (not to mention the boost in alumni support & involvement that would follow). At this point the recent cosmetic changes to the LB can easily be discounted in comparison to what other schools have done, are doing & are planning to do. The city of Memphis would not have zealously controlled the stadium that our university plays in since building Crump Stadium unless it benefited the city as a first priority. And the city has maintained that control even in the face of poor financial and physical management by arm twisting the major supporters of our university who have to maintain a good relationship with the city politicians in order to conduct business. Further Memphis elected politicians have been a part of the city first mentality by exerting influence in how facilities funding is administered to our university. And this has been the pattern since the 1930s! If you don't believe it, look no further than how every other school in the state receives sports facilities funding versus our university. And as long as it continues, our university will play the step-child in receiving state funding and in how sports facilities funding is channeled into Memphis rather than directly to our university.

it is just that simple. excellent post

(07-10-2014 08:57 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:51 PM)biguofmfan Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:43 PM)eltigre Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:31 PM)SMUleopold Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:28 AM)biguofmfan Wrote:  What Houston is doing is not impressive and is not worth Memphis' consideration. On the other hand, what Memphis can do to better itself is not only important at this critical time (as most of us are aware), but requires a sense of urgency. A sense of urgency RC Johnson apparently did not have - it would have been helpful if he had literally gotten off his rocker.

I'm sorry but I have to agree 100% with the posters who say you are wrong. Forget the fact that Memphis competes directly against Houston on the field and has so for a while now; most people believe that conference realignment is not over now and Memphis is going to find themselves in direct competition with Houston for any spot the Big XII has to offer. Having a brand new, state of the art on-campus facility helps in every possible way, from day to day operations to long term planning. Recruiting, hiring coaches, game day operations, financial concerns, game day experience - it's all completely upgraded now.

Memphis has been consistently overlooked for decades now for the simple reason that they have always been doubted about their overall commitment to the football team. Houston, I would argue, fell into that same position and got stung with it when the SWC fell apart. They played their games in the Astrodome and had Heisman trophy winners going to the Cotton Bowl and they still couldn't draw flies - that whole 'commuter school' thing dragged them down. Only they've chosen to do something about it now and while the conference as a whole benefits from a member fixing a problem it's going to hurt if they use it to go to greener pastures, which I'm sure they will if they get the chance.

Game, set, match!!! It's an arms race and resting on a parking lot that the city made as a peace keeping measure. The revenue streams are available and it can be done and we don't need a friggin' money tree. Schools with far less resources than Memphis have made it happen. The "money is not there" argument is simply not true.

I Agree 100%. I don't care where the stadium is, whether on- or off- campus, or if LB improvements are considered best. I just want an investment that shows that Memphis is serious. You are right -money is not as big an issue as others want to argue and shouldn't be an excuse regardless. I just don't think Houston's statement goes far enough IMO.

You should care where the stadium is, who owns it and controls the revenues. If OC, our university owns, controls & benefits from the revenues. This is very important & substantial financially. Maybe more important to the P5 decision-makers is the commitment to FB that an OC stadium would demonstrate (not to mention the boost in alumni support & involvement that would follow). At this point the recent cosmetic changes to the LB can easily be discounted in comparison to what other schools have done, are doing & are planning to do. The city of Memphis would not have zealously controlled the stadium that our university plays in since building Crump Stadium unless it benefited the city as a first priority. And the city has maintained that control even in the face of poor financial and physical management by arm twisting the major supporters of our university who have to maintain a good relationship with the city politicians in order to conduct business. Further Memphis elected politicians have been a part of the city first mentality by exerting influence in how facilities funding is administered to our university. And this has been the pattern since the 1930s! If you don't believe it, look no further than how every other school in the state receives sports facilities funding versus our university. And as long as it continues, our university will play the step-child in receiving state funding and in how sports facilities funding is channeled into Memphis rather than directly to our university.

Great post - I agree with a lot of what you said here. It is not controversial, though. No one is arguing that there aren't major advantages to an OCS. I just don't see a lot of those advantages being realized to their fullest extent if the University builds a $150M stadium on the campus.

Further, while a lot of your skepticism is without question well-founded in regard to the City's leadership, I am not sure why you think University leadership (up until most recently) has a track record that is any better. We wouldn't even be having this debate if Tom Jurich had been the AD here. On the other hand, the City has arguably done a very good job in regard to sports venues. The Liberty Bowl was world-class when built, and the Forum is the best basketball arena in the world. While the University does not control revenue in those instances, just like you said, the economic impact has been great for everyone in this City, including the University.

I just don't understand why the conversation always turns in to pitting the two sides up against each other. Both the City and the University rely on the other, and cooperation obviously creates the best situation for all in this instance. If on its own, the University can show the same commitment to the football program that it has recently shown to the School of Music and the Nursing School (both much more important than football anyway), then all Tiger fans would be getting their way.

I mean, how does Memphis distinguish itself from Houston on the stadium issue if Memphis does the exact same thing? If the University cannot do it on its own, then it is worth teaming up with the City, corporate sponsors, private donors, etc. to make it worthwhile to leave the Liberty Bowl.

(07-10-2014 09:55 PM)biguofmfan Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 08:57 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:51 PM)biguofmfan Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:43 PM)eltigre Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:31 PM)SMUleopold Wrote:  I'm sorry but I have to agree 100% with the posters who say you are wrong. Forget the fact that Memphis competes directly against Houston on the field and has so for a while now; most people believe that conference realignment is not over now and Memphis is going to find themselves in direct competition with Houston for any spot the Big XII has to offer. Having a brand new, state of the art on-campus facility helps in every possible way, from day to day operations to long term planning. Recruiting, hiring coaches, game day operations, financial concerns, game day experience - it's all completely upgraded now.

Memphis has been consistently overlooked for decades now for the simple reason that they have always been doubted about their overall commitment to the football team. Houston, I would argue, fell into that same position and got stung with it when the SWC fell apart. They played their games in the Astrodome and had Heisman trophy winners going to the Cotton Bowl and they still couldn't draw flies - that whole 'commuter school' thing dragged them down. Only they've chosen to do something about it now and while the conference as a whole benefits from a member fixing a problem it's going to hurt if they use it to go to greener pastures, which I'm sure they will if they get the chance.

Game, set, match!!! It's an arms race and resting on a parking lot that the city made as a peace keeping measure. The revenue streams are available and it can be done and we don't need a friggin' money tree. Schools with far less resources than Memphis have made it happen. The "money is not there" argument is simply not true.

I Agree 100%. I don't care where the stadium is, whether on- or off- campus, or if LB improvements are considered best. I just want an investment that shows that Memphis is serious. You are right -money is not as big an issue as others want to argue and shouldn't be an excuse regardless. I just don't think Houston's statement goes far enough IMO.

You should care where the stadium is, who owns it and controls the revenues. If OC, our university owns, controls & benefits from the revenues. This is very important & substantial financially. Maybe more important to the P5 decision-makers is the commitment to FB that an OC stadium would demonstrate (not to mention the boost in alumni support & involvement that would follow). At this point the recent cosmetic changes to the LB can easily be discounted in comparison to what other schools have done, are doing & are planning to do. The city of Memphis would not have zealously controlled the stadium that our university plays in since building Crump Stadium unless it benefited the city as a first priority. And the city has maintained that control even in the face of poor financial and physical management by arm twisting the major supporters of our university who have to maintain a good relationship with the city politicians in order to conduct business. Further Memphis elected politicians have been a part of the city first mentality by exerting influence in how facilities funding is administered to our university. And this has been the pattern since the 1930s! If you don't believe it, look no further than how every other school in the state receives sports facilities funding versus our university. And as long as it continues, our university will play the step-child in receiving state funding and in how sports facilities funding is channeled into Memphis rather than directly to our university.

Great post - I agree with a lot of what you said here. It is not controversial, though. No one is arguing that there aren't major advantages to an OCS. I just don't see a lot of those advantages being realized to their fullest extent if the University builds a $150M stadium on the campus.

Further, while a lot of your skepticism is without question well-founded in regard to the City's leadership, I am not sure why you think University leadership (up until most recently) has a track record that is any better. We wouldn't even be having this debate if Tom Jurich had been the AD here. On the other hand, the City has arguably done a very good job in regard to sports venues. The Liberty Bowl was world-class when built, and the Forum is the best basketball arena in the world. While the University does not control revenue in those instances, just like you said, the economic impact has been great for everyone in this City, including the University.

I just don't understand why the conversation always turns in to pitting the two sides up against each other. Both the City and the University rely on the other, and cooperation obviously creates the best situation for all in this instance. If on its own, the University can show the same commitment to the football program that it has recently shown to the School of Music and the Nursing School (both much more important than football anyway), then all Tiger fans would be getting their way.

I mean, how does Memphis distinguish itself from Houston on the stadium issue if Memphis does the exact same thing? If the University cannot do it on its own, then it is worth teaming up with the City, corporate sponsors, private donors, etc. to make it worthwhile to leave the Liberty Bowl.

Our university has had very good leadership in the past, just some mediocre leadership over the last 20-30 yrs. Your leadership focus is a little too short to justify what city & state politicians have done to damage our university's standing among P5 decision-makers since the 1960s by diverting school facilities funding for city-first priorities. Yes the Liberty Bowl was world-class at the time some 50+ yrs ago & built to attract UTK and Ole Miss to play some home games there - as publicly stated at the time. But conveniently for the politicians they diverted our university funding to both build it & to pay the rent since. And, coincidentally, UTK hasn't played a home game in Memphis in 40+ yrs. The same logic got Crump Stadium built for the city prior & the FEDX Forum since. And our university has suffered in the process by not receiving the revenues or controlling the facilities. So why do some of us pit the university against the city? Because the city has drained university funding & it has had a long term detrimental effect on the university. Had our university had an OCS in the 60s, we would likely have been in the SEC (lack of OCS facilities were cited as the primary reasons our university was not admitted). Our university continues to be viewed as a commuter school and politicians have been satisfied to keep it that way. And there is no question that our university handles its finances much better than the city. The ironic thing is that the city would have also benefited much greater to have had the facilities OC where they could have been used for city functions yet controlled by the university. And the city would have also greatly benefited by the development & increased tax-base of the Highland-Normal district due to the OCS - not to mention the increased student & alumni involvement.

(07-10-2014 08:57 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:51 PM)biguofmfan Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:43 PM)eltigre Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:31 PM)SMUleopold Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:28 AM)biguofmfan Wrote:  What Houston is doing is not impressive and is not worth Memphis' consideration. On the other hand, what Memphis can do to better itself is not only important at this critical time (as most of us are aware), but requires a sense of urgency. A sense of urgency RC Johnson apparently did not have - it would have been helpful if he had literally gotten off his rocker.

I'm sorry but I have to agree 100% with the posters who say you are wrong. Forget the fact that Memphis competes directly against Houston on the field and has so for a while now; most people believe that conference realignment is not over now and Memphis is going to find themselves in direct competition with Houston for any spot the Big XII has to offer. Having a brand new, state of the art on-campus facility helps in every possible way, from day to day operations to long term planning. Recruiting, hiring coaches, game day operations, financial concerns, game day experience - it's all completely upgraded now.

Memphis has been consistently overlooked for decades now for the simple reason that they have always been doubted about their overall commitment to the football team. Houston, I would argue, fell into that same position and got stung with it when the SWC fell apart. They played their games in the Astrodome and had Heisman trophy winners going to the Cotton Bowl and they still couldn't draw flies - that whole 'commuter school' thing dragged them down. Only they've chosen to do something about it now and while the conference as a whole benefits from a member fixing a problem it's going to hurt if they use it to go to greener pastures, which I'm sure they will if they get the chance.

Game, set, match!!! It's an arms race and resting on a parking lot that the city made as a peace keeping measure. The revenue streams are available and it can be done and we don't need a friggin' money tree. Schools with far less resources than Memphis have made it happen. The "money is not there" argument is simply not true.

I Agree 100%. I don't care where the stadium is, whether on- or off- campus, or if LB improvements are considered best. I just want an investment that shows that Memphis is serious. You are right -money is not as big an issue as others want to argue and shouldn't be an excuse regardless. I just don't think Houston's statement goes far enough IMO.

You should care where the stadium is, who owns it and controls the revenues. If OC, our university owns, controls & benefits from the revenues. This is very important & substantial financially. Maybe more important to the P5 decision-makers is the commitment to FB that an OC stadium would demonstrate (not to mention the boost in alumni support & involvement that would follow). At this point the recent cosmetic changes to the LB can easily be discounted in comparison to what other schools have done, are doing & are planning to do. The city of Memphis would not have zealously controlled the stadium that our university plays in since building Crump Stadium unless it benefited the city as a first priority. And the city has maintained that control even in the face of poor financial and physical management by arm twisting the major supporters of our university who have to maintain a good relationship with the city politicians in order to conduct business. Further Memphis elected politicians have been a part of the city first mentality by exerting influence in how facilities funding is administered to our university. And this has been the pattern since the 1930s! If you don't believe it, look no further than how every other school in the state receives sports facilities funding versus our university. And as long as it continues, our university will play the step-child in receiving state funding and in how sports facilities funding is channeled into Memphis rather than directly to our university.

After decades of not doing anything to improve the LB and not even allowing the university to have a logo on the field, the city spent a fortune on improvements and Tiger Lane the minute there was even a threat of an OCS.

(07-11-2014 08:38 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 08:57 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:51 PM)biguofmfan Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:43 PM)eltigre Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:31 PM)SMUleopold Wrote:  I'm sorry but I have to agree 100% with the posters who say you are wrong. Forget the fact that Memphis competes directly against Houston on the field and has so for a while now; most people believe that conference realignment is not over now and Memphis is going to find themselves in direct competition with Houston for any spot the Big XII has to offer. Having a brand new, state of the art on-campus facility helps in every possible way, from day to day operations to long term planning. Recruiting, hiring coaches, game day operations, financial concerns, game day experience - it's all completely upgraded now.

Memphis has been consistently overlooked for decades now for the simple reason that they have always been doubted about their overall commitment to the football team. Houston, I would argue, fell into that same position and got stung with it when the SWC fell apart. They played their games in the Astrodome and had Heisman trophy winners going to the Cotton Bowl and they still couldn't draw flies - that whole 'commuter school' thing dragged them down. Only they've chosen to do something about it now and while the conference as a whole benefits from a member fixing a problem it's going to hurt if they use it to go to greener pastures, which I'm sure they will if they get the chance.

Game, set, match!!! It's an arms race and resting on a parking lot that the city made as a peace keeping measure. The revenue streams are available and it can be done and we don't need a friggin' money tree. Schools with far less resources than Memphis have made it happen. The "money is not there" argument is simply not true.

I Agree 100%. I don't care where the stadium is, whether on- or off- campus, or if LB improvements are considered best. I just want an investment that shows that Memphis is serious. You are right -money is not as big an issue as others want to argue and shouldn't be an excuse regardless. I just don't think Houston's statement goes far enough IMO.

You should care where the stadium is, who owns it and controls the revenues. If OC, our university owns, controls & benefits from the revenues. This is very important & substantial financially. Maybe more important to the P5 decision-makers is the commitment to FB that an OC stadium would demonstrate (not to mention the boost in alumni support & involvement that would follow). At this point the recent cosmetic changes to the LB can easily be discounted in comparison to what other schools have done, are doing & are planning to do. The city of Memphis would not have zealously controlled the stadium that our university plays in since building Crump Stadium unless it benefited the city as a first priority. And the city has maintained that control even in the face of poor financial and physical management by arm twisting the major supporters of our university who have to maintain a good relationship with the city politicians in order to conduct business. Further Memphis elected politicians have been a part of the city first mentality by exerting influence in how facilities funding is administered to our university. And this has been the pattern since the 1930s! If you don't believe it, look no further than how every other school in the state receives sports facilities funding versus our university. And as long as it continues, our university will play the step-child in receiving state funding and in how sports facilities funding is channeled into Memphis rather than directly to our university.

After decades of not doing anything to improve the LB and not even allowing the university to have a logo on the field, the city spent a fortune on improvements and Tiger Lane the minute there was even a threat of an OCS.

I'll be nice & just say this is the city of Memphis' version of keeping the servant on the plantation. They keep our university pacified by almost meeting immediate needs while the city uses university funding for city-first purposes - and, amazingly they have some of the short-sighted public believing it actually benefits the university when the long-term effect is guaranteed mediocrity. All the while, UTK & the other state universities who receive direct funding are laughing at the commuter want-to-be who can't seen to understand the scam.