Texas A&M spends
- Thread starter pb1941
- Start date
So we ran $3M in the red this past year due to not putting fans in the stands and you think we can afford to put in lights. What for??? So the 1/4 full stadium looks better as attendance continues to decline. As long as we put a crap team on the field their is NO justification for upgrades of any kind. Making it look better is not going to fix the problems with this program anymore than flashy uniforms are. Upgrades are not putting 4 star players on the field either as long as you are the bottom dwelling team in the B1G.
SI - not that I can't appreciate your perspective, but what would you like to see Purdue do with respect to football? It sounds like you're suggesting the solution to football's problems is a better team, however a "better team" is not the solution per se, rather it is the byproduct of the solution. What in your mind is the solution... new coach? new AD? If so, what specifically are the qualities and/or behaviors of either of those position that you'd want to see?
It seems that Burke is pretty conservative in his fiscal management of the athletic budget. He comes from the generation that largely saved for things, then bought them when they'd saved enough. Today's thinking is much different (see massive credit card debt in this country as exhibit A). Today, people want what they want, and they want it now. Clearly there is reason for concern with the latter and respect for the former. But at the same time, it must also be appreciated that not all expenditures are expenses, some expenditures are investments whereby the benefit carries over a much longer term than that of a run-of-the-mill expense.
Stadium lights are frequently talked about here, and they are a good illustration of this. To me, it appears Burke views this as an expense, not an investment in the facility or the program. Therefore this is more of a if-we-have-a-surplus-we'll-consider-it-amongst-various-other-projects-on-our-list type of item. Whereas the softball stadium (mentioned in another thread) is clearly viewed as Burke to be an investment, as it should be, in Purdue's overall athletic goals.
Football lights are an inexpensive - relatively speaking - enhancement that could be made to RA. It seems Burke does not see a direct, measurable, off-setting return on this "expenditure"... and he's probably right. It's virtually impossible to prove out the future benefit. But I think I'd respect that view more if we were talking about something that's risky or never been done before, but Purdue is one of the few big-name schools without lights.
Some people on this board want to talk about inherent competitive disadvantages that Purdue faces in recruiting, etc. I don't necessarily subscribe to that notion, but when you're one of few schools to not have lights, it arguably is a disadvantage (albeit one of immeasurable consequence). If it is a disadvantage though, it's purely a self-inflicted one.... it's not anything inherent that Purdue simply cannot overcome, it's a choice made based upon competing priorities within the athletic department.
This post was edited on 12/30 9:55 AM by Statey
It seems that Burke is pretty conservative in his fiscal management of the athletic budget. He comes from the generation that largely saved for things, then bought them when they'd saved enough. Today's thinking is much different (see massive credit card debt in this country as exhibit A). Today, people want what they want, and they want it now. Clearly there is reason for concern with the latter and respect for the former. But at the same time, it must also be appreciated that not all expenditures are expenses, some expenditures are investments whereby the benefit carries over a much longer term than that of a run-of-the-mill expense.
Stadium lights are frequently talked about here, and they are a good illustration of this. To me, it appears Burke views this as an expense, not an investment in the facility or the program. Therefore this is more of a if-we-have-a-surplus-we'll-consider-it-amongst-various-other-projects-on-our-list type of item. Whereas the softball stadium (mentioned in another thread) is clearly viewed as Burke to be an investment, as it should be, in Purdue's overall athletic goals.
Football lights are an inexpensive - relatively speaking - enhancement that could be made to RA. It seems Burke does not see a direct, measurable, off-setting return on this "expenditure"... and he's probably right. It's virtually impossible to prove out the future benefit. But I think I'd respect that view more if we were talking about something that's risky or never been done before, but Purdue is one of the few big-name schools without lights.
Some people on this board want to talk about inherent competitive disadvantages that Purdue faces in recruiting, etc. I don't necessarily subscribe to that notion, but when you're one of few schools to not have lights, it arguably is a disadvantage (albeit one of immeasurable consequence). If it is a disadvantage though, it's purely a self-inflicted one.... it's not anything inherent that Purdue simply cannot overcome, it's a choice made based upon competing priorities within the athletic department.
This post was edited on 12/30 9:55 AM by Statey
So if it's just an investment that will fix this mess that has been going on nearly without fail since the departure of Jack Mollenkopf with the exception of the Tiller years then let's blow up the budget, level RA, build a world class domed facility and have the best facility money can buy. But let's also keep MB, DH and the litany of failed coaching staffs we've seen over the years. Think the new state of the art facility will translate into B1G or national championships???? If we keep doing things the same way we've done them for nearly the past 50 years we'll continue to be a bottom feeder only we'll be the bottom feeder with the best facilities money can buy. In case you haven't guessed it's bowl season and I've been so sickened by what I am seeing at Purdue for most of my life (I'm 62) that I refuse to allow a bowl game to be turned on in my house and see NO end to the Purdue misery.
Re: Texas A&M spends amen, amen, bro...
all of this crap about lights, patio, fireworks, etc. is frosting on a cake that has no yeast in it. We need to get to the heart of getting 4 star athletes to come to Purdue. What that involves, I don't know. I will know when it happens because I will see the results ON THE FIELD although by that time I may be the only person sitting at Ross-Ade. If scheduling a night game or two brings in the recruits, renting lights cannot be that expensive.
all of this crap about lights, patio, fireworks, etc. is frosting on a cake that has no yeast in it. We need to get to the heart of getting 4 star athletes to come to Purdue. What that involves, I don't know. I will know when it happens because I will see the results ON THE FIELD although by that time I may be the only person sitting at Ross-Ade. If scheduling a night game or two brings in the recruits, renting lights cannot be that expensive.
Re: Texas A&M spends amen, amen, bro...
A little window dressing wouldn`t hurt on the exterior,a rug, and lights. A lot of these star athletes are primadonna`s and if you have watched the Boilers play on the road much our stadium leaves a lot to be desired. A tougher pre season schedule would help. I can remember watching Elway play at RA.now its teams like W.Illinois a couple MAC schools. One MAC school a year and a couple football powers and people will come back.
A little window dressing wouldn`t hurt on the exterior,a rug, and lights. A lot of these star athletes are primadonna`s and if you have watched the Boilers play on the road much our stadium leaves a lot to be desired. A tougher pre season schedule would help. I can remember watching Elway play at RA.now its teams like W.Illinois a couple MAC schools. One MAC school a year and a couple football powers and people will come back.
Apologies for any confusion. I never intended to imply that investing in a new domed football stadium was the solution... you said the solution is a better team, and as I stated, a better team is the byproduct of the actual solutions, so I was asking what your "solutions" were. new AD? new coach? something else? I read a lot of complaints about Burke, but in another thread a month or so ago, I asked people what specifically others would do differently, and there were very little specifics noted in the responses. Thus, I was asking for your insight as to what you would do if it were you, or what moves you'd want the new guys to make if they replaced the current regime.
On your second point, I think it's kind of interesting that you say "if we keep doing things the same way we've done them...", and yet, you scoffed at the OP's complaint of Purdue not having put in lights. NOT putting in lights IS what Purdue has done for the last 50 years, so...
Not the best of arguments here.
This "renovation" is practically building a new stadium. Texas A&M's stadium, as someone who has been, is not all that "nice" and fancy. It obviously is still a tremendous atmosphere on gameday. But the last updating that has happened to it was 1999, which was an endzone addition. Heck, as of 1997 they still had a track that went around the field. They are not only renovating the stadium, but adding on several things, including increasing seating capacity by 20,000.
If Purdue completed all 3 phases of Ross-Ade's renovation, the cost was going to be about $150 million. I wouldn't be surprised if that would be inching towards $300 million to do the same exact work now.
I do think that the renovation of Ross-Ade was not the greatest. It was sort of just done half-assed and the vision of turning Ross-Ade into an 80,000 seat stadium was a pipe dream, even at the peak of success around that time. If you can't sell out a 67,000 seat stadium every game for even your best season, I'm not sure why you would be talking about expanding it to 80,000 (Texas A&M has a wait list right now).
You should focus on making what you have the best it can be - then worry about expanding. Purdue did not take that approach and held back thinking they'd be doing another phase shortly after.
This "renovation" is practically building a new stadium. Texas A&M's stadium, as someone who has been, is not all that "nice" and fancy. It obviously is still a tremendous atmosphere on gameday. But the last updating that has happened to it was 1999, which was an endzone addition. Heck, as of 1997 they still had a track that went around the field. They are not only renovating the stadium, but adding on several things, including increasing seating capacity by 20,000.
If Purdue completed all 3 phases of Ross-Ade's renovation, the cost was going to be about $150 million. I wouldn't be surprised if that would be inching towards $300 million to do the same exact work now.
I do think that the renovation of Ross-Ade was not the greatest. It was sort of just done half-assed and the vision of turning Ross-Ade into an 80,000 seat stadium was a pipe dream, even at the peak of success around that time. If you can't sell out a 67,000 seat stadium every game for even your best season, I'm not sure why you would be talking about expanding it to 80,000 (Texas A&M has a wait list right now).
You should focus on making what you have the best it can be - then worry about expanding. Purdue did not take that approach and held back thinking they'd be doing another phase shortly after.
Statey: Above is the thanks you get for posting a logical well reasoned message on this board.
SIBoiler2: I'm a little younger than you, which means I've had it even worse as a PU fan since at least you got to enjoy the Purdue football of the mid - late 60s. Purdue has sucked since the 70s in football (with the exception of a few years under Jim Young and Joe Tiller) because Purdue hasn't had a President since Hovde who gave a $hit about football. Thus, it's been viewed by the BOT simply as a way to cover the expense of non-revenue sports and nothing more, and 40+ years of incompetent leadership of the athletic department has been tolerated. This won't change until Purdue hires a President who understands that competitive football and men's basketball would be good for the whole university, rather than burdens that the university leadership can't avoid.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Purdue men's basketball Isaiah Thompson and Carson Barrett join coaching staff- Latest: Casey Bartley