[JohnR34231]

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.

[JohnR34231]

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.

[Roberton3]

[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.

[Roberton3]

[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.

[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.

[Bruce Wang]

C'mon guys, let's get real here. Even these days $105 million ain't hay.
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlin...gift.shtml

I am aware of Knight's generosity with the GSB.  I meant Stanford's athletic program.  I'm sure he donates, but I never hear his name.  He has a variety of reasons to support Oregon: home state, undergrad alma mater, brand association with Nike, etc.  I would think he would want to also associate the Nike brand with Stanford in a big way.  They are the big shoe sponsor for Stanford, but what's going on at Oregon is a completely different dimension.

[Bruce Wang]

C'mon guys, let's get real here. Even these days $105 million ain't hay.
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlin...gift.shtml

I am aware of Knight's generosity with the GSB.  I meant Stanford's athletic program.  I'm sure he donates, but I never hear his name.  He has a variety of reasons to support Oregon: home state, undergrad alma mater, brand association with Nike, etc.  I would think he would want to also associate the Nike brand with Stanford in a big way.  They are the big shoe sponsor for Stanford, but what's going on at Oregon is a completely different dimension.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8179.msg66717#msg66717 date=1377875068]
C'mon guys, let's get real here. Even these days $105 million ain't hay.
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlin...gift.shtml

I am aware of Knight's generosity with the GSB.  I meant Stanford's athletic program.  I'm sure he donates, but I never hear his name.  He has a variety of reasons to support Oregon: home state, undergrad alma mater, brand association with Nike, etc.  I would think he would want to also associate the Nike brand with Stanford in a big way.  They are the big shoe sponsor for Stanford, but what's going on at Oregon is a completely different dimension.
[/quote]

JMO, but I highly doubt that the reason that Knight gives a lot more money to the GSB than he does the football program is because we give him free hand to do what he wants with the former, but restrict him in the latter.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=8179.msg66717#msg66717 date=1377875068]
C'mon guys, let's get real here. Even these days $105 million ain't hay.
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlin...gift.shtml

I am aware of Knight's generosity with the GSB.  I meant Stanford's athletic program.  I'm sure he donates, but I never hear his name.  He has a variety of reasons to support Oregon: home state, undergrad alma mater, brand association with Nike, etc.  I would think he would want to also associate the Nike brand with Stanford in a big way.  They are the big shoe sponsor for Stanford, but what's going on at Oregon is a completely different dimension.
[/quote]

JMO, but I highly doubt that the reason that Knight gives a lot more money to the GSB than he does the football program is because we give him free hand to do what he wants with the former, but restrict him in the latter.

[JohnR34231]

I don't see how the NCAA could limit spending on facilities. It would lead to all kinds of anomalies. If a school like, say, Alabama, where football tickets are sold out until the year 6782, decided it wanted to build a new stadium with 25,000 more seats to make more tickets available, how could the NCAA justify stopping it? I think a lot of schools would rise in open rebellion against such a rule.

Yep, and I suspect that's why there isn't a rule, since there are rules for just about everything else.

"In the year 6782, if Tide football is still alive............" (It probably will be).

[JohnR34231]

I don't see how the NCAA could limit spending on facilities. It would lead to all kinds of anomalies. If a school like, say, Alabama, where football tickets are sold out until the year 6782, decided it wanted to build a new stadium with 25,000 more seats to make more tickets available, how could the NCAA justify stopping it? I think a lot of schools would rise in open rebellion against such a rule.

Yep, and I suspect that's why there isn't a rule, since there are rules for just about everything else.

"In the year 6782, if Tide football is still alive............" (It probably will be).

[Roberton3]

I don't see how the NCAA could limit spending on facilities. It would lead to all kinds of anomalies. If a school like, say, Alabama, where football tickets are sold out until the year 6782, decided it wanted to build a new stadium with 25,000 more seats to make more tickets available, how could the NCAA justify stopping it? I think a lot of schools would rise in open rebellion against such a rule.

You're misunderstanding what I'm suggesting (which is probably my fault, because I wasn't clear).  I had in mind a cap on spending on stuff used by coaches and/or players, but not fans or the general student body.  So the cost to expand a stadium wouldn't be under the cap (though if that new stadium includes a nice locker room, that part of the cost would be under the cap).  A new building open to all students (without any special preference for athletes) wouldn't be covered, but a new building specifically for athletes would be.  Then set the cap high enough that athletes get nice facilities, but low enough to prevent over-the-top spending.

You'd need a good team of lawyers to write the rules, of course.  And schools would try to cheat around the edges.  So it wouldn't be perfect.  But it'd save schools a fair bit of money and wouldn't cut out anything genuinely valuable.

[Roberton3]

I don't see how the NCAA could limit spending on facilities. It would lead to all kinds of anomalies. If a school like, say, Alabama, where football tickets are sold out until the year 6782, decided it wanted to build a new stadium with 25,000 more seats to make more tickets available, how could the NCAA justify stopping it? I think a lot of schools would rise in open rebellion against such a rule.

You're misunderstanding what I'm suggesting (which is probably my fault, because I wasn't clear).  I had in mind a cap on spending on stuff used by coaches and/or players, but not fans or the general student body.  So the cost to expand a stadium wouldn't be under the cap (though if that new stadium includes a nice locker room, that part of the cost would be under the cap).  A new building open to all students (without any special preference for athletes) wouldn't be covered, but a new building specifically for athletes would be.  Then set the cap high enough that athletes get nice facilities, but low enough to prevent over-the-top spending.

You'd need a good team of lawyers to write the rules, of course.  And schools would try to cheat around the edges.  So it wouldn't be perfect.  But it'd save schools a fair bit of money and wouldn't cut out anything genuinely valuable.