08-02-2013, 06:38 AM
The person who used to be the tutorial coordinator for FSU athletics moved all the way to Eugene to take a similar position. Now I understand why.
Inside the Oregon locker room
The person who used to be the tutorial coordinator for FSU athletics moved all the way to Eugene to take a similar position. Now I understand why.
08-02-2013, 07:42 AM
Certainly creates grist for debate about where to draw the line on spending for these types of facilities. NFL teams don't need to spend money on facilities like these because recruiting is such a small part of the NFL.Â
Just one more reason to pay players, and give each school a "salary cap," IMO. Doing that would eliminate any value in spending so much on over the top facilities, stop the college sports "arms race" and at the same time level the playing field to create greater competition.
Just one more reason to pay players, and give each school a "salary cap," IMO. Doing that would eliminate any value in spending so much on over the top facilities, stop the college sports "arms race" and at the same time level the playing field to create greater competition.
Certainly creates grist for debate about where to draw the line on spending for these types of facilities. NFL teams don't need to spend money on facilities like these because recruiting is such a small part of the NFL.Â
Just one more reason to pay players, and give each school a "salary cap," IMO. Doing that would eliminate any value in spending so much on over the top facilities, stop the college sports "arms race" and at the same time level the playing field to create greater competition.
Just one more reason to pay players, and give each school a "salary cap," IMO. Doing that would eliminate any value in spending so much on over the top facilities, stop the college sports "arms race" and at the same time level the playing field to create greater competition.
08-02-2013, 07:56 AM
(08-02-2013, 07:45 AM)Publius link Wrote:I wish they showed a picture of Helfrich's private bathroom. :P
After all the peeing and moaning about JH's $50,000 bathroom can you imagine the firestorm building a place like that would have caused?
(08-02-2013, 07:45 AM)Publius link Wrote:I wish they showed a picture of Helfrich's private bathroom. :P
After all the peeing and moaning about JH's $50,000 bathroom can you imagine the firestorm building a place like that would have caused?
08-02-2013, 10:44 AM
I realize that any complaints from me, as a Stanford fan, will ring a bit hollow -- kind of like the Red Sox complaining about how much the Yankees spend -- but here goes. Not all schools have someone like Phil Knight or John Arrillaga or Boone Pickens. Can you imagine poor Mike Riley trying to recruit the top kids in Oregon? Say these kids have already taken a visit to Eugene, then Riley walks them through the OSU facilities. I'm struggling to come up with a suitable analogy, but nothing seems to come close. To say that this gives Oregon a recruiting advantage would obviously be a vast understatement. NFL locker rooms don't look like this.
So what's to be done? I still don't think it's time to pay players, but I do think it's time to limit the donations a program can accept. Also, it would be interesting to know how the Oregon students and non-football-focused alumni feel about this. How to the student dorms, libraries, and research facilities compare to this football Taj Mahal? That's the big question, I think.
So what's to be done? I still don't think it's time to pay players, but I do think it's time to limit the donations a program can accept. Also, it would be interesting to know how the Oregon students and non-football-focused alumni feel about this. How to the student dorms, libraries, and research facilities compare to this football Taj Mahal? That's the big question, I think.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
I realize that any complaints from me, as a Stanford fan, will ring a bit hollow -- kind of like the Red Sox complaining about how much the Yankees spend -- but here goes. Not all schools have someone like Phil Knight or John Arrillaga or Boone Pickens. Can you imagine poor Mike Riley trying to recruit the top kids in Oregon? Say these kids have already taken a visit to Eugene, then Riley walks them through the OSU facilities. I'm struggling to come up with a suitable analogy, but nothing seems to come close. To say that this gives Oregon a recruiting advantage would obviously be a vast understatement. NFL locker rooms don't look like this.
So what's to be done? I still don't think it's time to pay players, but I do think it's time to limit the donations a program can accept. Also, it would be interesting to know how the Oregon students and non-football-focused alumni feel about this. How to the student dorms, libraries, and research facilities compare to this football Taj Mahal? That's the big question, I think.
So what's to be done? I still don't think it's time to pay players, but I do think it's time to limit the donations a program can accept. Also, it would be interesting to know how the Oregon students and non-football-focused alumni feel about this. How to the student dorms, libraries, and research facilities compare to this football Taj Mahal? That's the big question, I think.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
08-02-2013, 11:13 AM
Hank, that would start to get problematic pretty quickly. It's not clear that the NCAA even could limit targeted donations, and if they tried they'd almost certainly get sued and lose. The NCAA isn't interested in competitive balance and never has been, so why would they even want to?
I'm also not really sold on it being a problem. The three examples you cited were rich dudes coming in and helping rescue programs from mediocrity, isn't that kind of what we want? Would Oregon be a perennial top-10 team without uncle Phil? Would OSU without Pickens? (I don't think Arrillaga factored into our rise, but may be wrong.) And the rich schools elsewhere don't do it off of individual rich donors (at least as far as I'm aware), but because they have such rabid followings they make tons of money. Is this have/have-not divide a problem? I'm not actually sure. As I said before, college football has never had any real parity and it's not clear to me that it needs it. Different programs have different goals, is it really a problem that the mid-majors aren't ever going to win a national championship? At least they have a reasonable shot of a major bowl if everything comes together for them.
As for how the fans/students feel about it, my guess is there's some grumbling but they don't really care. Even ignoring the whole "it makes their experience better because they enjoy a better football team" thing, it probably makes their experience better by increasing interest in the university, which can bring in more/better students and more non-football donations. Plus if the athletic department has more money than it can reasonably spend it means they're not losing money. (Now, if taxpayer money was used on that monstrosity that's another story.)
I was in school when the new Stadium was built and didn't care whatsoever about it. It's not like there was any chance that money was going to be spent on new dorms, or anything else that I'd benefit from directly.
I'm also not really sold on it being a problem. The three examples you cited were rich dudes coming in and helping rescue programs from mediocrity, isn't that kind of what we want? Would Oregon be a perennial top-10 team without uncle Phil? Would OSU without Pickens? (I don't think Arrillaga factored into our rise, but may be wrong.) And the rich schools elsewhere don't do it off of individual rich donors (at least as far as I'm aware), but because they have such rabid followings they make tons of money. Is this have/have-not divide a problem? I'm not actually sure. As I said before, college football has never had any real parity and it's not clear to me that it needs it. Different programs have different goals, is it really a problem that the mid-majors aren't ever going to win a national championship? At least they have a reasonable shot of a major bowl if everything comes together for them.
As for how the fans/students feel about it, my guess is there's some grumbling but they don't really care. Even ignoring the whole "it makes their experience better because they enjoy a better football team" thing, it probably makes their experience better by increasing interest in the university, which can bring in more/better students and more non-football donations. Plus if the athletic department has more money than it can reasonably spend it means they're not losing money. (Now, if taxpayer money was used on that monstrosity that's another story.)
I was in school when the new Stadium was built and didn't care whatsoever about it. It's not like there was any chance that money was going to be spent on new dorms, or anything else that I'd benefit from directly.
Hank, that would start to get problematic pretty quickly. It's not clear that the NCAA even could limit targeted donations, and if they tried they'd almost certainly get sued and lose. The NCAA isn't interested in competitive balance and never has been, so why would they even want to?
I'm also not really sold on it being a problem. The three examples you cited were rich dudes coming in and helping rescue programs from mediocrity, isn't that kind of what we want? Would Oregon be a perennial top-10 team without uncle Phil? Would OSU without Pickens? (I don't think Arrillaga factored into our rise, but may be wrong.) And the rich schools elsewhere don't do it off of individual rich donors (at least as far as I'm aware), but because they have such rabid followings they make tons of money. Is this have/have-not divide a problem? I'm not actually sure. As I said before, college football has never had any real parity and it's not clear to me that it needs it. Different programs have different goals, is it really a problem that the mid-majors aren't ever going to win a national championship? At least they have a reasonable shot of a major bowl if everything comes together for them.
As for how the fans/students feel about it, my guess is there's some grumbling but they don't really care. Even ignoring the whole "it makes their experience better because they enjoy a better football team" thing, it probably makes their experience better by increasing interest in the university, which can bring in more/better students and more non-football donations. Plus if the athletic department has more money than it can reasonably spend it means they're not losing money. (Now, if taxpayer money was used on that monstrosity that's another story.)
I was in school when the new Stadium was built and didn't care whatsoever about it. It's not like there was any chance that money was going to be spent on new dorms, or anything else that I'd benefit from directly.
I'm also not really sold on it being a problem. The three examples you cited were rich dudes coming in and helping rescue programs from mediocrity, isn't that kind of what we want? Would Oregon be a perennial top-10 team without uncle Phil? Would OSU without Pickens? (I don't think Arrillaga factored into our rise, but may be wrong.) And the rich schools elsewhere don't do it off of individual rich donors (at least as far as I'm aware), but because they have such rabid followings they make tons of money. Is this have/have-not divide a problem? I'm not actually sure. As I said before, college football has never had any real parity and it's not clear to me that it needs it. Different programs have different goals, is it really a problem that the mid-majors aren't ever going to win a national championship? At least they have a reasonable shot of a major bowl if everything comes together for them.
As for how the fans/students feel about it, my guess is there's some grumbling but they don't really care. Even ignoring the whole "it makes their experience better because they enjoy a better football team" thing, it probably makes their experience better by increasing interest in the university, which can bring in more/better students and more non-football donations. Plus if the athletic department has more money than it can reasonably spend it means they're not losing money. (Now, if taxpayer money was used on that monstrosity that's another story.)
I was in school when the new Stadium was built and didn't care whatsoever about it. It's not like there was any chance that money was going to be spent on new dorms, or anything else that I'd benefit from directly.
08-02-2013, 11:16 AM
Stupac -- Because this response is in print, it might sound like I'm being sarcastic or patronizing, so please know that I am not. After reading your response, I agree with you. Your ideas were thought out much more thoroughly than mine.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
Stupac -- Because this response is in print, it might sound like I'm being sarcastic or patronizing, so please know that I am not. After reading your response, I agree with you. Your ideas were thought out much more thoroughly than mine.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
08-02-2013, 11:42 AM
(08-02-2013, 11:16 AM)Hank 91 link Wrote:Stupac -- Because this response is in print, it might sound like I'm being sarcastic or patronizing, so please know that I am not. After reading your response, I agree with you. Your ideas were thought out much more thoroughly than mine.
I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt anyway, so warning not needed. It's a tricky subject and I think that reactions like yours are valid, because it's pretty clear that system is broken. What's less clear is what to do about it, and the exact ways in which it's broken. The vast amounts of money flowing through college football draw a lot of attention, but I tend to think that's somewhat misguided. The money's always going to be there as long as people care as passionately as they do now, so the real goal should be to putting it to good use. That's why I'm so drawn to Shaw's argument that the NCAA should work harder to make sure these kids are actually getting an education, but I think we covered that pretty thoroughly in a different thread.
(08-02-2013, 11:16 AM)Hank 91 link Wrote:Stupac -- Because this response is in print, it might sound like I'm being sarcastic or patronizing, so please know that I am not. After reading your response, I agree with you. Your ideas were thought out much more thoroughly than mine.
I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt anyway, so warning not needed. It's a tricky subject and I think that reactions like yours are valid, because it's pretty clear that system is broken. What's less clear is what to do about it, and the exact ways in which it's broken. The vast amounts of money flowing through college football draw a lot of attention, but I tend to think that's somewhat misguided. The money's always going to be there as long as people care as passionately as they do now, so the real goal should be to putting it to good use. That's why I'm so drawn to Shaw's argument that the NCAA should work harder to make sure these kids are actually getting an education, but I think we covered that pretty thoroughly in a different thread.
08-03-2013, 10:46 AM
I take a totally different approach. I say there should be no rules governing how much can be spent on facilities and no limits on how much can be donated by any one individual.
Schools need to focus on what they have available "to sell" to prospective student-athletes. For example, LSJU "sells" the heck out of their academic reputation. Should we limit the class offerings that athletes can take at their respective schools to mitigate the academic advantage that LSJU offers? Of course not. Today, it is not a level playing field academically and that is a concept that should never be changed.
To restrict the donations of a single individual (Arrillaga, Pickens, Knight or even Haas) is nonsensical. Instead, schools should be cultivating wealthy alums because most of these guys donate not only to the athletic program but to the academic side as well (Knight Library, Haas Business School, etc. etc.)
I like the idea of the crazy stuff at UO, I think it turns off some guys. I know of one UC recruit who said he thought it was all over the top. He wanted to attend a school that had its priorities in order. I am sure there are guys who chose LSJU over UO for the same reason.
In essence, competition is good. Beat UO by being better at what you do best - providing a world class education. All of Knight's money will never put UO over the top in that area....
Schools need to focus on what they have available "to sell" to prospective student-athletes. For example, LSJU "sells" the heck out of their academic reputation. Should we limit the class offerings that athletes can take at their respective schools to mitigate the academic advantage that LSJU offers? Of course not. Today, it is not a level playing field academically and that is a concept that should never be changed.
To restrict the donations of a single individual (Arrillaga, Pickens, Knight or even Haas) is nonsensical. Instead, schools should be cultivating wealthy alums because most of these guys donate not only to the athletic program but to the academic side as well (Knight Library, Haas Business School, etc. etc.)
I like the idea of the crazy stuff at UO, I think it turns off some guys. I know of one UC recruit who said he thought it was all over the top. He wanted to attend a school that had its priorities in order. I am sure there are guys who chose LSJU over UO for the same reason.
In essence, competition is good. Beat UO by being better at what you do best - providing a world class education. All of Knight's money will never put UO over the top in that area....
I take a totally different approach. I say there should be no rules governing how much can be spent on facilities and no limits on how much can be donated by any one individual.
Schools need to focus on what they have available "to sell" to prospective student-athletes. For example, LSJU "sells" the heck out of their academic reputation. Should we limit the class offerings that athletes can take at their respective schools to mitigate the academic advantage that LSJU offers? Of course not. Today, it is not a level playing field academically and that is a concept that should never be changed.
To restrict the donations of a single individual (Arrillaga, Pickens, Knight or even Haas) is nonsensical. Instead, schools should be cultivating wealthy alums because most of these guys donate not only to the athletic program but to the academic side as well (Knight Library, Haas Business School, etc. etc.)
I like the idea of the crazy stuff at UO, I think it turns off some guys. I know of one UC recruit who said he thought it was all over the top. He wanted to attend a school that had its priorities in order. I am sure there are guys who chose LSJU over UO for the same reason.
In essence, competition is good. Beat UO by being better at what you do best - providing a world class education. All of Knight's money will never put UO over the top in that area....
Schools need to focus on what they have available "to sell" to prospective student-athletes. For example, LSJU "sells" the heck out of their academic reputation. Should we limit the class offerings that athletes can take at their respective schools to mitigate the academic advantage that LSJU offers? Of course not. Today, it is not a level playing field academically and that is a concept that should never be changed.
To restrict the donations of a single individual (Arrillaga, Pickens, Knight or even Haas) is nonsensical. Instead, schools should be cultivating wealthy alums because most of these guys donate not only to the athletic program but to the academic side as well (Knight Library, Haas Business School, etc. etc.)
I like the idea of the crazy stuff at UO, I think it turns off some guys. I know of one UC recruit who said he thought it was all over the top. He wanted to attend a school that had its priorities in order. I am sure there are guys who chose LSJU over UO for the same reason.
In essence, competition is good. Beat UO by being better at what you do best - providing a world class education. All of Knight's money will never put UO over the top in that area....
Limiting donations is highly problematic and poor policy-a nonstarter. However, a school's administration deciding such a "Taj Mahal" is counter their mission and values even when they have the resources should be applauded. I hope Stanford would put such a donation to better use and would bet John A. would agree.
Frankly I agree with the "tacky" comment above.
Also, Arrilaga deserves A LOT of credit for Stanford's rise. The construction of Stanford Stadium and the consistent investment in facilities sent a message that we were serious about our program when the results on the field gave the opposite message. He had faith in Stanford football and that faith may have swayed so many other critical decisions by guys with names like Harbaugh, Luck, De Castro and Gerhart.
Frankly I agree with the "tacky" comment above.
Also, Arrilaga deserves A LOT of credit for Stanford's rise. The construction of Stanford Stadium and the consistent investment in facilities sent a message that we were serious about our program when the results on the field gave the opposite message. He had faith in Stanford football and that faith may have swayed so many other critical decisions by guys with names like Harbaugh, Luck, De Castro and Gerhart.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
(This post was last modified: 08-03-2013, 11:16 AM by Leftcoast.)
Limiting donations is highly problematic and poor policy-a nonstarter. However, a school's administration deciding such a "Taj Mahal" is counter their mission and values even when they have the resources should be applauded. I hope Stanford would put such a donation to better use and would bet John A. would agree.
Frankly I agree with the "tacky" comment above.
Also, Arrilaga deserves A LOT of credit for Stanford's rise. The construction of Stanford Stadium and the consistent investment in facilities sent a message that we were serious about our program when the results on the field gave the opposite message. He had faith in Stanford football and that faith may have swayed so many other critical decisions by guys with names like Harbaugh, Luck, De Castro and Gerhart.
Frankly I agree with the "tacky" comment above.
Also, Arrilaga deserves A LOT of credit for Stanford's rise. The construction of Stanford Stadium and the consistent investment in facilities sent a message that we were serious about our program when the results on the field gave the opposite message. He had faith in Stanford football and that faith may have swayed so many other critical decisions by guys with names like Harbaugh, Luck, De Castro and Gerhart.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
08-03-2013, 01:25 PM
There are pages and pages of NCAA rules on what college football teams can and can't do, presumably in the interest of maintaining a competitive balance. How many times you can contact a recruit, what you can feed him when he visits campus, the list goes on and on.
Yet it's perfectly OK to pay coaches millions and millions a year, spend tens or hundreds of millions on facilities, and so on. As people are pointing out, these things certainly contribute to giving teams competitive advantages.
It seems to me that the NCAA is worrying about the nickles and dimes while the dollars are flying out the window. Not sure if anything can or should be done about it, but it just strikes me as somewhat odd.
What does everyone else think?
Yet it's perfectly OK to pay coaches millions and millions a year, spend tens or hundreds of millions on facilities, and so on. As people are pointing out, these things certainly contribute to giving teams competitive advantages.
It seems to me that the NCAA is worrying about the nickles and dimes while the dollars are flying out the window. Not sure if anything can or should be done about it, but it just strikes me as somewhat odd.
What does everyone else think?
There are pages and pages of NCAA rules on what college football teams can and can't do, presumably in the interest of maintaining a competitive balance. How many times you can contact a recruit, what you can feed him when he visits campus, the list goes on and on.
Yet it's perfectly OK to pay coaches millions and millions a year, spend tens or hundreds of millions on facilities, and so on. As people are pointing out, these things certainly contribute to giving teams competitive advantages.
It seems to me that the NCAA is worrying about the nickles and dimes while the dollars are flying out the window. Not sure if anything can or should be done about it, but it just strikes me as somewhat odd.
What does everyone else think?
Yet it's perfectly OK to pay coaches millions and millions a year, spend tens or hundreds of millions on facilities, and so on. As people are pointing out, these things certainly contribute to giving teams competitive advantages.
It seems to me that the NCAA is worrying about the nickles and dimes while the dollars are flying out the window. Not sure if anything can or should be done about it, but it just strikes me as somewhat odd.
What does everyone else think?
08-03-2013, 04:04 PM
(08-02-2013, 11:13 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:(I don't think Arrillaga factored into our rise, but may be wrong.)
I don't know but I'll bet he was a big part of paying off the final years of Buddy's and Wlat's contracts. That would be a brobdingnagian contribution in my eyes.
(08-02-2013, 11:13 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:(I don't think Arrillaga factored into our rise, but may be wrong.)
I don't know but I'll bet he was a big part of paying off the final years of Buddy's and Wlat's contracts. That would be a brobdingnagian contribution in my eyes.
08-03-2013, 04:27 PM
Yes, and still had our best recruiting class in years.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
Yup, Harbaugh and Stanford itself were behind doors #1 and #2 for recruits. I'm just saying it didn't hurt to see the athletic department and its major donor investing in the program when we were 1-11 and people on the outside we're suggesting Stanford couldn't (or wouldn't) compete.
Give Harbaugh, Luck and perhaps Bowlsby most of the credit but be sure to save some for Arrilaga.
Give Harbaugh, Luck and perhaps Bowlsby most of the credit but be sure to save some for Arrilaga.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2013, 08:10 PM by Leftcoast.)
Yup, Harbaugh and Stanford itself were behind doors #1 and #2 for recruits. I'm just saying it didn't hurt to see the athletic department and its major donor investing in the program when we were 1-11 and people on the outside we're suggesting Stanford couldn't (or wouldn't) compete.
Give Harbaugh, Luck and perhaps Bowlsby most of the credit but be sure to save some for Arrilaga.
Give Harbaugh, Luck and perhaps Bowlsby most of the credit but be sure to save some for Arrilaga.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
08-30-2013, 07:12 AM
http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ss...out_sports
Those poor professors at Oregon are under the delusion that their jobs are to educate young people or conduct research, when their real jobs are to babysit post-adolescent football fans during the week.
This was the most interesting sentence in the article:
Perhaps this explains why Knight has not lavished more of his largesse on the Farm.
Those poor professors at Oregon are under the delusion that their jobs are to educate young people or conduct research, when their real jobs are to babysit post-adolescent football fans during the week.
This was the most interesting sentence in the article:
Quote:"That line was crossed in 2010 when Richard Lariviere, then UO president, warned the State Board of Higher Education of dire consequences if board members failed to give Knight approval to do as he pleased without administrative oversight while constructing Hatfield-Dowlin."
Perhaps this explains why Knight has not lavished more of his largesse on the Farm.
http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ss...out_sports
Those poor professors at Oregon are under the delusion that their jobs are to educate young people or conduct research, when their real jobs are to babysit post-adolescent football fans during the week.
This was the most interesting sentence in the article:
Perhaps this explains why Knight has not lavished more of his largesse on the Farm.
Those poor professors at Oregon are under the delusion that their jobs are to educate young people or conduct research, when their real jobs are to babysit post-adolescent football fans during the week.
This was the most interesting sentence in the article:
Quote:"That line was crossed in 2010 when Richard Lariviere, then UO president, warned the State Board of Higher Education of dire consequences if board members failed to give Knight approval to do as he pleased without administrative oversight while constructing Hatfield-Dowlin."
Perhaps this explains why Knight has not lavished more of his largesse on the Farm.
08-30-2013, 08:04 AM
(08-30-2013, 07:12 AM)Publius link Wrote:http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ss...out_sports
Those poor professors at Oregon are under the delusion that their jobs are to educate young people or conduct research, when their real jobs are to babysit post-adolescent football fans during the week.
This was the most interesting sentence in the article:
Quote:"That line was crossed in 2010 when Richard Lariviere, then UO president, warned the State Board of Higher Education of dire consequences if board members failed to give Knight approval to do as he pleased without administrative oversight while constructing Hatfield-Dowlin."
Perhaps this explains why Knight has not lavished more of his largesse on the Farm.
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
(08-30-2013, 07:12 AM)Publius link Wrote:http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ss...out_sports
Those poor professors at Oregon are under the delusion that their jobs are to educate young people or conduct research, when their real jobs are to babysit post-adolescent football fans during the week.
This was the most interesting sentence in the article:
Quote:"That line was crossed in 2010 when Richard Lariviere, then UO president, warned the State Board of Higher Education of dire consequences if board members failed to give Knight approval to do as he pleased without administrative oversight while constructing Hatfield-Dowlin."
Perhaps this explains why Knight has not lavished more of his largesse on the Farm.
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
08-30-2013, 08:05 AM
(08-30-2013, 07:47 AM)garvin link Wrote:I dunno. How much "administrative oversight" do you think John Arrillaga had while bulding the new stadium?
Probably very little, but my guess is that's because Arrillaga is a known commodity to Stanford's administration, and they trust him not to do anything that would embarrass the university. Stanford's administration definitely cares about the optics of this stuff, and they absolutely don't want to give the impression that academics take a back seat to athletics at Stanford.
If Arrillaga wanted to build anything nearly as over-the-top as Oregon's palatial new building, I think he would have gotten plenty of oversight from Stanford's administration.
(08-30-2013, 07:47 AM)garvin link Wrote:I dunno. How much "administrative oversight" do you think John Arrillaga had while bulding the new stadium?
Probably very little, but my guess is that's because Arrillaga is a known commodity to Stanford's administration, and they trust him not to do anything that would embarrass the university. Stanford's administration definitely cares about the optics of this stuff, and they absolutely don't want to give the impression that academics take a back seat to athletics at Stanford.
If Arrillaga wanted to build anything nearly as over-the-top as Oregon's palatial new building, I think he would have gotten plenty of oversight from Stanford's administration.
08-30-2013, 08:10 AM
(08-30-2013, 07:47 AM)garvin link Wrote:I dunno. How much "administrative oversight" do you think John Arrillaga had while bulding the new stadium?
Hey, Garvin, do you think JA had much administrative oversight while he was building Harbaugh's $50K potty?
(08-30-2013, 07:47 AM)garvin link Wrote:I dunno. How much "administrative oversight" do you think John Arrillaga had while bulding the new stadium?
Hey, Garvin, do you think JA had much administrative oversight while he was building Harbaugh's $50K potty?
08-30-2013, 08:13 AM
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?Â
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.
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.
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?Â
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.
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.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »