And what exactly is the decision?Dr. Shinns first big decision as President, lets see how this is handled.
And what exactly is the decision?Dr. Shinns first big decision as President, lets see how this is handled.
So it's better to remain homeless in the interim? Sorry but this analogy kind of falls apart here.Yes. If you don't have the funds for a permanent house yet, settling for a trailer as a permanent fix—knowing it can't handle the elements—isn't just "buying what you can afford." It’s taking the cheap way out instead of budgeting and saving for the right solution.
They went forward with the option that fit the timeline. There are probably thousands of bubbles that are out there. This isn't an issue with the bubble approach, this is an issue with this specific product for some reason. Your argument about upgrading Wa Griz is a nonstarter because this money was earmarked for this project and upgrading the student-athlete experience. This specific situation just hasn't worked out, which doesn't mean a bubble is an overall bad approach.The 10 million dollars would of been better spent to upgrade WA Griz stadium, you would of returned more on your investment which could be reinvested into the AD Dept. You say it wasn't rushed but that kind of makes it worse, you had time to think about all the possible things that could go wrong by installing a inflatable fabric structure in SW Montana, would love to see the engineering report with all the caveats.
But it wasn't designed as a permanent fix.Yes. If you don't have the funds for a permanent house yet, settling for a trailer as a permanent fix—knowing it can't handle the elements—isn't just "buying what you can afford." It’s taking the cheap way out instead of budgeting and saving for the right solution.
It wasn't meant to be the permanent optionIf that’s the cheap option, then yes.
If you don’t do it right the first time, it will almost always end up being more expensive in the long run.
Is getting what you can afford taking the cheap way out?
Is getting what you can afford taking the cheap way out?
Everyone knows the answer to this one. Also what if someone or a team was in there practicing when it collapsed, imagine the PR and lawsuits.And what exactly is the decision?
I think that makes it a worse decision then.It wasn't meant to be the permanent option
You cant pivot, its a lack of planning.They went forward with the option that fit the timeline. There are probably thousands of bubbles that are out there. This isn't an issue with the bubble approach, this is an issue with this specific product for some reason. Your argument about upgrading Wa Griz is a nonstarter because this money was earmarked for this project and upgrading the student-athlete experience. This specific situation just hasn't worked out, which doesn't mean a bubble is an overall bad approach.
So it's better to remain homeless in the interim? Sorry but this analogy kind of falls apart here.
For the record, I'm not really taking a position on whether UM should have done the bubble or not. I don't feel like I have enough information to do so. My only concern with the bubble is over quality control right now.
No, you continue to use what you have always done. Rent or in Griz football's case, keep practicing in the elements like previous teams have had to do. Fundraise and save for 4-5 years heavily and then build. I dont see why the need for something now should offset the smart decision to save for a few years like other programs do.So it's better to remain homeless in the interim? Sorry but this analogy kind of falls apart here.
For the record, I'm not really taking a position on whether UM should have done the bubble or not. I don't feel like I have enough information to do so. My only concern with the bubble is over quality control right now.
Even worse, spent 10 million dollars on a temporary fix that is only designed to last 10-15 years.But it wasn't designed as a permanent fix.
When raised funds are earmarked for a specific project it isn't easy to just pivot and put the money elsewhere.You cant pivot, its a lack of planning.
Thank you boggled CAT fan.I think that makes it a worse decision then.
While the bubble was cheaper, it wasn’t cheap. So if the plan was knowing that it wouldn’t be good enough to be permanent but do it anyways just to have to fundraise for a permanent building later…that doesn’t make any sense. Building it won’t get any cheaper going forward, and was the idea that the boosters would want to pay for an IPF twice? Cause I sure wouldn’t!
Honestly, kind of boggles my mind that UM couldn’t raise enough to do a permanent IPF in the first place.
UM through the Missoulian says the bubble deflation was not storm related, A staffer on Thursday evening noticed or heard a leak and it was brought down purposefully as a preemptive measure. The manufacture's reps are on their way to inspect.A friend just called me. The Bubble is down after last night's storm. Looks to her that there is major damage.
MSU is focused on positioning themselves for an FBS move. UM is playing catchup.That's not what I said, the bubble was/is a terrible idea, it was rushed, it was done so that AD Dept could get the press that they were the first to have an indoor facility over MSU and post it over SM. MSU was patient and did it right. How much money and time will go into fixing the bubble going forward. A warranty only lasts so long and does not include events classified as mother nature. Lets hope they have insurance on it.
UM through the Missoulian says the bubble deflation was not storm related, A staffer on Thursday evening noticed or heard a leak and it was brought down purposefully as a preemptive measure.
LMAO.....Is this what the mecca of college football looks like. The bubble goes down more the hoops on Bobby hauck.MSU is focused on positioning themselves for an FBS move. UM is playing catchup.
Buy once, cry once.“Buy nice or buy twice.”
-Bob Saget