04-18-2012, 11:48 AM
OutsiderFan,
Great points really. From an "insider" point of view, I suspect.
As a Stanford fan living in California this subject is tricky. I understand the UC at B wants to be competitive in the conference. I am happy as a Stanford fan when reality misses those conference dominating aspirations over there. So on the field performance and failure is easy for me to assess.
Off the field, I also understand that the UC at B needed a stadium. I was always a bit annoyed that donors could not find funds in advance. And yet other mega-state schools have used the same "We will pay later, honest" strategy. This is one of the many reasons the college football is dominated by state schools since private institutions can't play that game. Still, the sticker price of the project was stunning.
And yet, I can't divorce my Stanford concerns from my Cali concerns. The Stanford fan in me thinks it is funny that UC at B needed so much money to complete a rather minor renovation and that it took so much time. The whole project just assures me that UC at B AD is simply not in Stanford AD's league. And yet, as a taxpayer, I think I am outraged that the UC at B even tries to complete programs like this.
The UCLA AD has amazing budget discipline, so it is possible. UCLA does OK in football and amazingly well in athletics without a $500 million dollar stadium complex on campus. Is it really too much to ask the UC at B students to ride BART for three or four stations and attend games in Oakland? Given the stress and strain to the entire state and the UC system that rent at Oakland would feel like a real shared sacrifice type move. But then, I can't tell if that is my Stanford desire to crush UC at B mindset or if that is my taxpayer seeing the State need to get more creative at cutting costs.
Oh well, what is clear is that Big Game 2014 tickets will probably run $150 per seat.
Great points really. From an "insider" point of view, I suspect.
As a Stanford fan living in California this subject is tricky. I understand the UC at B wants to be competitive in the conference. I am happy as a Stanford fan when reality misses those conference dominating aspirations over there. So on the field performance and failure is easy for me to assess.
Off the field, I also understand that the UC at B needed a stadium. I was always a bit annoyed that donors could not find funds in advance. And yet other mega-state schools have used the same "We will pay later, honest" strategy. This is one of the many reasons the college football is dominated by state schools since private institutions can't play that game. Still, the sticker price of the project was stunning.
And yet, I can't divorce my Stanford concerns from my Cali concerns. The Stanford fan in me thinks it is funny that UC at B needed so much money to complete a rather minor renovation and that it took so much time. The whole project just assures me that UC at B AD is simply not in Stanford AD's league. And yet, as a taxpayer, I think I am outraged that the UC at B even tries to complete programs like this.
The UCLA AD has amazing budget discipline, so it is possible. UCLA does OK in football and amazingly well in athletics without a $500 million dollar stadium complex on campus. Is it really too much to ask the UC at B students to ride BART for three or four stations and attend games in Oakland? Given the stress and strain to the entire state and the UC system that rent at Oakland would feel like a real shared sacrifice type move. But then, I can't tell if that is my Stanford desire to crush UC at B mindset or if that is my taxpayer seeing the State need to get more creative at cutting costs.
Oh well, what is clear is that Big Game 2014 tickets will probably run $150 per seat.