[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8179.msg66721#msg66721 date=1377875966]
[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=8179.msg66720#msg66720 date=1377875624]
I'm coming in a bit late to this thread.  But it seems like there's a very strong case to be made for some cap on spending on stuff like this.  I wouldn't cap donations -- it's not clear that would be legal, and the problem is the spending, not the donations.  But what purpose is served by having facilities like this? 

It's clearly in Oregon's best interest to build this facility, because it helps them win recruiting battles against schools with less luxurious facilities.  But the result is an arms race among the wealthier schools: you need to outdo your competitors.  Put a cap on that spending, and every school would save money.  The football games would be just as good (other than helping win recruiting battles, a facility like this won't lead to better football).  And if a cap would mean more competitive balance (which I'm not sure it would, but it might), that could make college football better.  But the big point would be to save every school money.

Of course, writing the rules and enforcing them would be tough.  But the NCAA already has plenty of rules that are much harder to write and enforce than this would be.

The only problem I have with this type of philosophy is that slowing down the college football arms race was Ted Leland's mantra, and where did it lead us? To Buddy and Wlat, that's where. So I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it happening, just as long as we are not the poster boy for it.
[/quote]

Having one school limit spending doesn't work: that's unilateral disarmament, and it just means that school loses.  You need a spending cap (or something similar) on all schools to make it work.
[/quote]

True, but someone has to tout it, and to some people touting something means leading by example. I don't want us to be the leaders.

It will be a tough sell too, because Florida State just dumped their AD because they didn't think he was raising enough money to keep them in the race.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8179.msg66721#msg66721 date=1377875966]
[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=8179.msg66720#msg66720 date=1377875624]
I'm coming in a bit late to this thread.  But it seems like there's a very strong case to be made for some cap on spending on stuff like this.  I wouldn't cap donations -- it's not clear that would be legal, and the problem is the spending, not the donations.  But what purpose is served by having facilities like this? 

It's clearly in Oregon's best interest to build this facility, because it helps them win recruiting battles against schools with less luxurious facilities.  But the result is an arms race among the wealthier schools: you need to outdo your competitors.  Put a cap on that spending, and every school would save money.  The football games would be just as good (other than helping win recruiting battles, a facility like this won't lead to better football).  And if a cap would mean more competitive balance (which I'm not sure it would, but it might), that could make college football better.  But the big point would be to save every school money.

Of course, writing the rules and enforcing them would be tough.  But the NCAA already has plenty of rules that are much harder to write and enforce than this would be.

The only problem I have with this type of philosophy is that slowing down the college football arms race was Ted Leland's mantra, and where did it lead us? To Buddy and Wlat, that's where. So I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it happening, just as long as we are not the poster boy for it.
[/quote]

Having one school limit spending doesn't work: that's unilateral disarmament, and it just means that school loses.  You need a spending cap (or something similar) on all schools to make it work.
[/quote]

True, but someone has to tout it, and to some people touting something means leading by example. I don't want us to be the leaders.

It will be a tough sell too, because Florida State just dumped their AD because they didn't think he was raising enough money to keep them in the race.