• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Facilities

ORGUNGRIZ said:
I could understand building all new facilities the the Champions Center and all the other upgrades if it was done so with some sort of a plan moving for.
Not all plans are public information; you seem pretty sure there is not one.

Nothing is forever in college football, even an over-expanded 56 year old small college conference.
 
kemajic said:
ORGUNGRIZ said:
I could understand building all new facilities the the Champions Center and all the other upgrades if it was done so with some sort of a plan moving for.
Not all plans are public information; you seem pretty sure there is not one.

Nothing is forever in college football, even an over-expanded 56 year old small college conference.
If there is a plan, it should be public.
 
Spanky2 said:
kemajic said:
ORGUNGRIZ said:
I could understand building all new facilities the the Champions Center and all the other upgrades if it was done so with some sort of a plan moving for.
Not all plans are public information; you seem pretty sure there is not one.

Nothing is forever in college football, even an over-expanded 56 year old small college conference.
If there is a plan, it should be public.

They have several contingencies and proceed accordingly to keep many plausible. There is zero reason that all these contingency plans need to be made public until necessary which they will do when a specific course of action selected.
 
grizindabox said:
Spanky2 said:
kemajic said:
ORGUNGRIZ said:
I could understand building all new facilities the the Champions Center and all the other upgrades if it was done so with some sort of a plan moving for.
Not all plans are public information; you seem pretty sure there is not one.

Nothing is forever in college football, even an over-expanded 56 year old small college conference.
If there is a plan, it should be public.

They have several contingencies and proceed accordingly to keep many plausible. There is zero reason that all these contingency plans need to be made public until necessary which they will do when a specific course of action selected.
You seem well informed and speak as an insider. I wasn’t aware of the contingency plans. Since UM isn’t a private university, it might be a good idea to reveal some of these plans to inform interested taxpayers.
 
MTGRZ said:
UM athletics wants:
1.New, updated athletic training/injury rehab facility (preferably connected to Champions Center)
2. Indoor practice/track facility.

But first we need more assess in the seats (students in classrooms). And then we need more and NEWER donors to both UM and the GSA. Yes, older more frequently relied upon donors to either UM and/or the athletic department will hopefully be counted on, but we need more young (45-year-old and younger) alums/fans to be engaged and, quite frankly, open to giving some money. Can it be done? Yes. But it ain't gonna sell itself. Hope UM and the athletic department continue to reach out to younger alums to generate interest and money.

Very good points. Your reasoning is why I think getting funding for athletics needs to happen soon. The longer we wait the more difficult it will become to secure private funds (unless the Washington’s continue to donate large amounts. Let’s face it, if they hadn’t gotten involved on Champions Center it is probably still in the fundraising stage). I think the days of raising student fees is long gone. In part because they’ll probably refuse to do it and also because their numbers are lower. As enrollment declines the number of potential donors declines. Financing with game revenues could also become trickier.

Bottom line: The time to do this is now.
 
ORGUNGRIZ said:
So why are UM and MSU looking to complete all of these upgrades in all honesty?

UM has or will have facilities on par with a good many MWC schools. If MSU follows they will as well and I wonder why?

To be able to compete in the BSC? If that’s the case then that’s sad deal. Especially when you take all of the other schools in the BSC into consideration. No offense to those schools.

I could understand building all new facilities the the Champions Center and all the other upgrades if it was done so with some sort of a plan moving for. Maybe like if you had certain things in place the MWC would extend invitations to join their conference.

But if the plan is to stay in the BSC at the FCS level, then why not just complete remodels and upgrades and not build new buildings.

Heck we may very well see Central Washington and or other current DII programs move into the BSC. Which in my opinion would water it down even more.

The UM weight room (several little connected ones not even at the same level), football and basketball locker rooms, meeting rooms, and some offices, were not fixable with remodels and upgrades. Many high schools in the state had better weight room facilities. That didn't mean that UM needed to build something as big and nice as the Champions Center. There is no indoor practice facility, so any indoor practice facility will have to be built. That doesn't mean UM needs an indoor practice facility.

I don't know what the UM strategy is, or secret plans are, now. But, UM has generally wanted to improve and expand facilities and to keep building more and better facilities, in order to be prepared for anything that may come, including both changes to FBS/FCS structure and opportunities that could come from other or new levels. Even though UM determined years ago that FCS was the right and best level at that time, and presumably now, and that UM didn't have the money to move up; UM still wanted to keep improving, moving forward, and being ready. This is straight from the mouths of Hogan and O'Day. While I don't know, I assume Haslam would say the same thing.
 
PlayerRep said:
ORGUNGRIZ said:
So why are UM and MSU looking to complete all of these upgrades in all honesty?

UM has or will have facilities on par with a good many MWC schools. If MSU follows they will as well and I wonder why?

To be able to compete in the BSC? If that’s the case then that’s sad deal. Especially when you take all of the other schools in the BSC into consideration. No offense to those schools.

I could understand building all new facilities the the Champions Center and all the other upgrades if it was done so with some sort of a plan moving for. Maybe like if you had certain things in place the MWC would extend invitations to join their conference.

But if the plan is to stay in the BSC at the FCS level, then why not just complete remodels and upgrades and not build new buildings.

Heck we may very well see Central Washington and or other current DII programs move into the BSC. Which in my opinion would water it down even more.

The UM weight room (several little connected ones not even at the same level), football and basketball locker rooms, meeting rooms, and some offices, were not fixable with remodels and upgrades. Many high schools in the state had better weight room facilities. That didn't mean that UM needed to build something as big and nice as the Champions Center. There is no indoor practice facility, so any indoor practice facility will have to be built. That doesn't mean UM needs an indoor practice facility.

I don't know what the UM strategy is, or secret plans are, now. But, UM has generally wanted to improve and expand facilities and to keep building more and better facilities, in order to be prepared for anything that may come, including both changes to FBS/FCS structure and opportunities that could come from other or new levels. Even though UM determined years ago that FCS was the right and best level at that time, and presumably now, and that UM didn't have the money to move up; UM still wanted to keep improving, moving forward, and being ready. This is straight from the mouths of Hogan and O'Day. While I don't know, I assume Haslam would say the same thing.
PR - I do recall Kent saying a few years ago that an indoor practice facility was next on the bucket list. For what it's worth.Things may have changed.
 
I agree with the foolishness of building new athletic facilities to compete against Northern Colorado, Central Washington, Dixie State, Southern Utah. We are long overdue with a move to FBS and if there is a plan to move up, time to reveal the plan. Otherwise, put a hold on building new athletic buildings and start investing in classrooms. By the way, if our future is to schedule Central Washington, four games with Dixie State, please don’t attempt to fool the troops by remarking that Dixie State has a great football tradition!
 
Spanky2 said:
I agree with the foolishness of building new athletic facilities to compete against Northern Colorado, Central Washington, Dixie State, Southern Utah. We are long overdue with a move to FBS and if there is a plan to move up, time to reveal the plan. Otherwise, put a hold on building new athletic buildings and start investing in classrooms. By the way, if our future is to schedule Central Washington, four games with Dixie State, please don’t attempt to fool the troops by remarking that Dixie State has a great football tradition!

So you want to ignore long-term planning because of short-term issues?
 
grizindabox said:
Spanky2 said:
I agree with the foolishness of building new athletic facilities to compete against Northern Colorado, Central Washington, Dixie State, Southern Utah. We are long overdue with a move to FBS and if there is a plan to move up, time to reveal the plan. Otherwise, put a hold on building new athletic buildings and start investing in classrooms. By the way, if our future is to schedule Central Washington, four games with Dixie State, please don’t attempt to fool the troops by remarking that Dixie State has a great football tradition!

So you want to ignore long-term planning because of short-term issues?
We have been in this so called conference 56 years. How long do you think it will take for your long term plan to come together?
 
Spanky2 said:
grizindabox said:
Spanky2 said:
I agree with the foolishness of building new athletic facilities to compete against Northern Colorado, Central Washington, Dixie State, Southern Utah. We are long overdue with a move to FBS and if there is a plan to move up, time to reveal the plan. Otherwise, put a hold on building new athletic buildings and start investing in classrooms. By the way, if our future is to schedule Central Washington, four games with Dixie State, please don’t attempt to fool the troops by remarking that Dixie State has a great football tradition!

So you want to ignore long-term planning because of short-term issues?
We have been in this so called conference 56 years. How long do you think it will take for your long term plan to come together?

So yes.
 
Spanky2 said:
grizindabox said:
Spanky2 said:
I agree with the foolishness of building new athletic facilities to compete against Northern Colorado, Central Washington, Dixie State, Southern Utah. We are long overdue with a move to FBS and if there is a plan to move up, time to reveal the plan. Otherwise, put a hold on building new athletic buildings and start investing in classrooms. By the way, if our future is to schedule Central Washington, four games with Dixie State, please don’t attempt to fool the troops by remarking that Dixie State has a great football tradition!

So you want to ignore long-term planning because of short-term issues?
We have been in this so called conference 56 years. How long do you think it will take for your long term plan to come together?

So what is your athletic vision for the future? Please provide some specifics and not just pie in the sky.
 
Spanky2 said:
I agree with the foolishness of building new athletic facilities to compete against Northern Colorado, Central Washington, Dixie State, Southern Utah. We are long overdue with a move to FBS and if there is a plan to move up, time to reveal the plan. Otherwise, put a hold on building new athletic buildings and start investing in classrooms. By the way, if our future is to schedule Central Washington, four games with Dixie State, please don’t attempt to fool the troops by remarking that Dixie State has a great football tradition!
You haven't been on campus lately if you think we need new classrooms. Davidson overbuilt the University as his legacy, presuming continuous growth. Classrooms for about 17,000, enrollment about 10,000. While I, too, was a move-up proponent 10 years ago, this university is not currently positioned to move to FBS even if the opportunity presented itself. UM is stuck playing small college ball in your and my lifetime, so let's enjoy what we can. RTD is the right short term priority.
 
So we are stuck in the Big Sky. Wonderful. Why more athletic facilities? Then the contingency plans are a myth?
 
PlayerRep said:
Spanky2 said:
grizindabox said:
Spanky2 said:
I agree with the foolishness of building new athletic facilities to compete against Northern Colorado, Central Washington, Dixie State, Southern Utah. We are long overdue with a move to FBS and if there is a plan to move up, time to reveal the plan. Otherwise, put a hold on building new athletic buildings and start investing in classrooms. By the way, if our future is to schedule Central Washington, four games with Dixie State, please don’t attempt to fool the troops by remarking that Dixie State has a great football tradition!

So you want to ignore long-term planning because of short-term issues?
We have been in this so called conference 56 years. How long do you think it will take for your long term plan to come together?

So what is your athletic vision for the future? Please provide some specifics and not just pie in the sky.
Based on what others are saying, we will be fortunate to hang on and stay in the Big Sky. If Denny wants to build more buildings, so be it.
 
Spanky2 said:
So we are stuck in the Big Sky. Wonderful. Why more athletic facilities? Then the contingency plans are a myth?

You seemed to gloss over the "not currently positioned" part of Kems post. He also believes that you are kicking the bucket in the short term future.
 
grizindabox said:
Spanky2 said:
So we are stuck in the Big Sky. Wonderful. Why more athletic facilities? Then the contingency plans are a myth?

You seemed to gloss over the "not currently positioned" part of Kems post. He also believes that you are kicking the bucket in the short term future.
It isn’t responsible building fancy athletic facilities and funding 63 scholarships to compete in a small college conference.
 
George Ferguson said:
Griz til I die said:
Since there’s been a lot of talk about facilities at msu lately, I figured we should talk about or own. When I was the GSA golf tournament in Butte a month ago, Greg Sundberg was talking about how they’ve raised $4.9 million out of $5 million for phase 2 which he said includes renovating the old football locker room and putting the basketball team in it, but I can’t remember what else he said was included in the project. Did anybody else hear his same speech or know what’s included in phase 2?

The B.O.R. already approved the project. The men's and women's BB teams are getting brand new lockerrooms, in the exact mold of the football team's LR in the Champions Center, which was always the goal when the Champions Center was first announced. I think a players lounge and full-sized team meeting/film room is included in the project. I was told when they were here for the spring tour that the new basketball locker rooms will be state of the art and be nicer than MW and WCC schools.

I believe they will move on to the indoor facility, but it's a BIG DREAM, and I doubt will hear anything about it for a longgggg time. I also think there is a Phase III to the softball stadium they want to do.

The soccer stadium just got a brand new field, new sprinkler system ect, thanks to Pearl Jam!
So George, I know the indoor practice facility is years away, but do you have any idea how far they are from fundraising for it? Have they started already or is that in the future?
 
AllWeatherFan said:
Just curious: Why wouldn't it be covered by insurance?

This sounds like a maintenance/deterioration issue, which property insurance policies don't typically cover. (If they did cover maintenance/wear and tear, nobody could afford the premiums...) The contractor's or architect's insurance MIGHT get pulled in if the problem is traced to something they did wrong, but unlikely this many years out from construction. If the leaking had been caused by a single, sudden and accidental, direct physical loss, such as windstorm, hail, tornado, fire, etc., then building insurance would likely cover it. I'm guessing the university explored all options when the problem was originally identified.
 
Back
Top