(01-28-2013 06:21 PM)JSF Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 03:42 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  If you don't have the money to build it right, wait until you do. Don't settle for something inferior that you'll then be stuck with.

As a for instance, what if it took 5-10 years? Do you keep waiting? The fundraising has already been several years, so maybe that's all they were going to get. Do you go with nothing or something?

This is not accurate because it was one major donation by Robert Walter of 10 million that underscored the financing for the project.

http://bartlogan.wordpress.com/2011/03/1...ty-campus/

The Walter family also gave other money to the university for other projects so obviously money was there. Typically when seeking major gifts the objective is to stretch the dollars of major donors by asking for a percentage of the project with matching dollars from a different pool.

If you look at any building on Ohio's campus paid for by private money in no case was a donor footing 100% of the costs but rather a sizable share (50-75%) to proceed with the project. Then a public campaign is announced and a broader base of smaller donors give.

The target price for the IPF for Ohio has always been in the 12-14 mil range and not on the high end (20 million) ever since the public campaign was announced. They never had any desire to match Akron's facility.

Akron's field house did not cost all that much to build ($5 million primary gift, total costs under $14m). That's why I wonder why other schools don't do the same.

It's a matter of design, not funding.

I think a good part of the money is being spent to make it fit in with the village's rustic aesthetic.

So they plan on having a deer antler chandelier hanging in the entrance?

Sorry about the size of the pic but someone posted this picture of our IPF construction.

(01-28-2013 08:34 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  Akron's field house did not cost all that much to build ($5 million primary gift, total costs under $14m). That's why I wonder why other schools don't do the same.

It's a matter of design, not funding.

What Akron built for 14 million dollars 8-10 years ago now costs 20 million to build.

I believe Miami's pricetag is going to be in the neighborhood of 20 million.

(01-29-2013 12:23 AM)uakronkid Wrote:  So they plan on having a deer antler chandelier hanging in the entrance?

Near the wood stove.

Youngstown State. Not bad for I-AA.

I hear Hoffa is buried under the first "N" in Penguins.

That YSU facility is really nice!

(01-28-2013 02:14 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 01:03 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:55 PM)7 Wrote:  It really makes zero sense how Akron blows at football with the facilities they have.

Coaching has a much more direct impact on success compared to facilities. We screwed up in that department in a major way when we hired Rob Ianello, and are still trying to recover.

Indeed, and it just goes to show how hiring low-level AQ assistants is such a crapshoot. Ianello is a bust, while Urban Meyer builds up BG and makes history elsewhere. Both were WR coaches at Notre Dame.

Facilities don't translate to success, but they certainly don't hurt. Not too many recruits will see a new IPF and say "Wow, I have to go here now!", but the level of facilities can help show the commitment the university has to its program. I'm no psychology expert, but if you tour a brand new facility like Akron compared to a rusty old locker room somewhere else, it might subconsciously affect the way you look at other aspects of the school. But, you'll always see some illogical correlations between winning and facilities, take Vanderbilt and Auburn for example. A program comes down to a coach, but facilities can help retain them and keep the program going strong.

Yes, there is no question about Akron's football success since it got rid of rusty old locker rooms.

Quote:A program comes down to a coach, but facilities can help retain them and keep the program going strong.

.
Prove it. Name a single MAC coach who turned down an offer to a BCS conference because he had better facilities in the MAC.

(02-04-2013 08:41 PM)FlashFan Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 02:14 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 01:03 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(01-28-2013 12:55 PM)7 Wrote:  It really makes zero sense how Akron blows at football with the facilities they have.

Coaching has a much more direct impact on success compared to facilities. We screwed up in that department in a major way when we hired Rob Ianello, and are still trying to recover.

Indeed, and it just goes to show how hiring low-level AQ assistants is such a crapshoot. Ianello is a bust, while Urban Meyer builds up BG and makes history elsewhere. Both were WR coaches at Notre Dame.

Facilities don't translate to success, but they certainly don't hurt. Not too many recruits will see a new IPF and say "Wow, I have to go here now!", but the level of facilities can help show the commitment the university has to its program. I'm no psychology expert, but if you tour a brand new facility like Akron compared to a rusty old locker room somewhere else, it might subconsciously affect the way you look at other aspects of the school. But, you'll always see some illogical correlations between winning and facilities, take Vanderbilt and Auburn for example. A program comes down to a coach, but facilities can help retain them and keep the program going strong.

Yes, there is no question about Akron's football success since it got rid of rusty old locker rooms.

Quote:A program comes down to a coach, but facilities can help retain them and keep the program going strong.

.
Prove it. Name a single MAC coach who turned down an offer to a BCS conference because he had better facilities in the MAC.

You're right about Akron, its not like their facilities have magically thrusted them to football greatness. Instead, I was trying to get at that their facilities still give them a big edge over other MAC schools in that category. While it doesn't produce results because of bad coaching overall, maybe it somehow influenced a recruit or two that wouldn't of signed if they were still in the Rubber Bowl.

I didn't word my second point that you referred to very well, I didn't mean to say that MAC coaches stay at their school because of their facilities. It was more of a generic statement about college football, even if it doesn't apply very often. Petersen at Boise State is an example, they've ramped up Bronco Stadium and their football facilities, and that might have been a factor as to why he hasn't left for greener pastures. Most of the time, it doesn't keep them, but if Boise was playing in the Kibbie Dome like the U of Idaho, Petersen might've been somewhere else for a while now.

Everyone has their favorite anecdote. I'm looking for facts. I haven't seen any evidence that the most expensive facilities deliver better results.

I have anecdotes, too. The last time Akron won 5 games in a single season, they played in the Rubber Bowl. In the 4 seasons that they've played in the The Big Dialer, they've won 6 games. The stadium didn't just appear. They recruited using it as bait for 2 years before it opened. So the Zips have had an allure of new facilities for 6 years and won 6 games under 3 coaches. Riddle me that. In terms of attracting coaches, the Zips couldn't even attract home their first choice, an alumni, who choose to remain with the facilities at Wayne State.

On the topic that facilities retain coaches on a mid major level, Brad Stevens' basketball team plays in a facility that looks like it came out of the movie Hoosiers. He's taken them to the Final Four twice. Stevens turned down a move to a pretty solid BIG team with great facilities, Illinois, last year to stay and play in Hinkle Fieldhouse. Illinois went on to steal a coach from some other school (cough), with a fan who is apparently obsessed with the notion that a little more money on facilities (or on anything) will make a difference in retaining coaches.

You have your anecdotes. I have mine. Would love to read some analysis that balances fairy tales with data.

If I had to guess, it would be that facilities and coaching salaries must be in the "good enough" range. They can't be a deterrent to other institutional advantages. But I continue to be skeptical of the "pay more, get more" argument advanced so frequently in this community.

It's the head coach, not the facilities. The two dominant (recently) MAC schools in their divisions, NIU and Ohio, don't have indoor facilities. That's supposed to be the new big draw for recruits. As soon as everyone else in the MAC has an IF, then we'll be off to the next new toy.

Peterson's contract, $11.7 million over 5 years, may have a little bit to do with why he stays. Great salary, low cost of living, no hordes of reporters dissecting his every play, no pro teams in the area, fans that love him even if he doesn't win a NC, total control of the program. Where else could he go and have it so good?

I agree..the key is college football is the head coach and coaching staff. (having an elite QB doesn't hurt). Many MAC schools have had a push over the last decade to improve facilities, and most have. At Miami we've greatly improved our football stadium while also adding a new softball stadium and baseball stadium. Has it translated to wins? Nope, not really with the exception of our surprising 2010 MAC title..I'd argue that was due to Coach Haywood who had an incredibly experienced coaching staff for a mid-major program. Once he left, it fell down like a "deck of cards".

P.S. Big Ben played at Miami thru 2003, before most all of the Yager stadium improvements were made and Cradle of coach's plaza was constructed. We also had a good Coach in Hoeppner back in that era.

Of course, like I said, coaches make teams, facilities help them. A lot? No, but that and a variety of factors (budget, competition, fan support, salary, etc.) can help improve a program or keep a coach from leaving.

It's important to have competitive facilities for recruiting, but as observed it sure hasn't done squat for Akron. OU has the benefit of stable (and good) coaching staff and the university is trying to keep up in terms of facilities. I would argue that for the lack of revenue that our major sports provide, all in all MAC schools have spent as much or even more than they probably should've on upgrades over the last 10 years. As I noted in another thread (or maybe even this one earlier but too lazy to re-check), 20 years ago most of the MAC stadiums were an absolute joke....now many have luxury lodges, expanded capacities, nice Field turf, and attached or nearby conditioning buildings and even indoor practice fields. A lot of buckaroos have been spent, but the attendance remains stubbornly stuck where it has been for decades, and now public universities are being strangled by lack of public funds because the States are so cash-strapped.

Where am I going with this? I don't think that these upgraded facilities are "game-changers" for MAC...certainly nice to do and may help recruiting a bit, but unless you've got private money it's tough to justify.

Buying a more expensive car doesn't make you a better driver.

(02-05-2013 02:31 PM)JSF Wrote:  Buying a more expensive car doesn't make you a better driver.

Yea but getting a shiny new town car with leather seats might help you drive around a better class of people.

(02-05-2013 03:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-05-2013 02:31 PM)JSF Wrote:  Buying a more expensive car doesn't make you a better driver.

Yea but getting a shiny new town car with leather seats might help you drive around a better class of people.

Which is what the salesmen tell you when you're on the lot.