Question - considering the moving of the scoreboard, is the facility going to be a track around a soccer field? That would be a cool killing two birds with one $5 million stone...
New football improvements are great but..
- Thread starter Rhoadhoused
- Start date
Question - considering the moving of the scoreboard, is the facility going to be a track around a soccer field? That would be a cool killing two birds with one $5 million stone...
Pollard would only move forward on it if he knew it could be 100 percent privately paid for by interested donors. He'd never be stupid enough to steal money from football to pay for it.
Then we should be able to improve it for far less than $5-$10 million. How much does something like Roland-Story High School cost? I think they are 2-A. We can only (and should) try to change how someone wants to donate, but no AD funds should be used imo. NU did not develop a huge budget by investing in non-revenue sports.
I know how bad it is, but I rather have the worst track program in the nation than sacrifice anything for football or men's basketball.
ISU has a responsibility as a member of the Big 12 to provide sport venues worthy of Big 12 competition.
1. Our current soccer field is not worthy. We're infamous for having the bumpiest playing surface in the conference; Texas A&M players and coaches were making fun of it.
2. Our outdoor track is not worthy.
3. Our softball field is not worthy. I can name a dozen high school diamonds in central Iowa alone that are better. We don't even have lights, people.
If we want to stay in the Big 12 and play with the big boys (and girls), we need to provide sport venues that are better than what you find at Simpson or Central College. Right now they're worse.
Like I said, if it is coming as a Big 12 mandate, then make some improvements. As bad as they are, the 5 million, or whatever the donation is, should be able to cover the cost without spending AD money. Some schools use non-University owned facilities for basketball- perhaps ISU could do the same in non-revenue sports.
It is not fiscally responsible for ISU to be competing with the big boys in non-revenue sports facilities. Trying to do so would be a good way to end up playing with the MAC. 10 million for a new Football Building would go a lot farther in ensuring both football and non-revenue sports compete against the Big Boys.
Yes I do know. Luckily, they can share facilities with a program that does make money, you know...Men's basketball.
I would be all for having soccer playing on JTS and using the visitors locker room, thus not having to spend any on the program for facilities. Take the savings and give it to football.
That logic doesn't apply to track. There is no obligation to the rest of the Big 12 to host track meets. Do you think any other school are pining away to comes to Ames on a 45-degree Saturday in April to run track? They LOVE the fact ISU has no track.
Softball and soccer playing surfaces and facilities could be upgraded for a lot less than 10.4 mil. The track is the major expense here, let's not hide behind a smoke screen to sell it.
Collect the 10.4 mil in donations and start moving earth. Otherwise, no go.
You forgot about the Sukup facility - remember that ISU built a full-size indoor court, meeting areas, offices, and lockers just for women's basketball, a "non-revenue sport."
Using your critieria, we could have saved several millions by building the Sukup half its current size, and just for the men. Right?
- As others have stated, there is a cost savings in doing a soccer, track, and softball complex all at the same time. That cost savings is real. And is as real as the cost savings of doing something now vs later. Especially in this economy.
- Some of the cost is the removal of the scoreboard from the south endzone and placing it at the soccer complex. This helps shorten the completion timeline for the south endzone by making it an offseason project vs a year project that will affect revenue for a football season.
- Moving the scoreboard with these funds is a brilliant way of utilizing funds that are earmarked for track for the benefit of football. If the track/soccer/softball funds didn't pay for the moving then football money would have to be used. So in the end, some of this money will benefit football.
- The fact that you stated our track/softball/soccer complex should equal that of a 2A Iowa high school says it all. We should have better facilities than a 2A Iowa high school. There are DIII schools that have better facilities than us and that is unacceptable
- Interesting enough, you should check out Nebraska's volleyball complex and facilities and the timeline of its renovations. It is amazing.
- I think you need to look at the cost of building a new softball field, soccer complex and track. Nebrasak replaced their track in 2000 and it cost $2 million. Yes, just their track.
Last edited:
Yes, because nothing says big time football like having soccer lines painted on your football field.
I envision something like this...MISSOURI OFFICIAL ATHLETIC SITE - Facilities... as it is what most Big 12 schools have. KState has a similar facility. Look how Mizzou uses facilities to serve bot track/soccer and softball. From the article
"Walton Stadium possesses all the amenities that comprise today's top dual-sports facilities in the nation. Sitting on the west side of the track, the stadium serves the track and soccer teams on one side and softball on the other. The softball field was turned to place home plate in the northwest corner, backing it up to the track/soccer venue. This allows all service facilities to play double duty. For example, the entry plaza services both facilities meaning the restrooms, concession stands and ticket booths were not duplicated. There is also a full-size press box to accommodate the media for track, soccer and softball. "
You don't realize just how much time and money it would take to prep JTS playing surface to accommodate soccer, do you?
Ever notice that a football field is "crowned" (there's a "high point" in the middle of the field and goes downhill as you move toward the sidelines)? Soccer fields are completely flat surfaces. So you either spend significant chunks of money a pop prepping the football field to be suitable to play soccer, or you have the team playing on a field not suitable for soccer. At that point, guess what? It's cheaper to build a new soccer facility.
First, halving the building would not have saved millions. Second, bottom line is we did not build the facility for WBB. Being able to very cheaply house them as well while building a practice facility for MBB was just a perk. Like I said, they are fortunate they can share facilities with MBB. Third, I would have been fine not having WBB in the Sukup, and letting them continue practicing in Hilton. Use the savings on improving the MBB coaching situation.
Last edited:
Uh, balmy Colorado hosted the Big 12 outdoor track championships in 2008, and Nebraska the year before that...
I hinted that you should check the timing for Nebraska's renovations.
Like I said, and you ignored, the south endzone is not being held up in order to build the track/soccer/softball complex. They have nothing to do with one another.
Who said they would be permanent?
I am well aware of the difference in a soccer field to a football field. Guess, what? It is cheaper to say play through it, than to build a new facility. If soccer does not like it, they can stay in the floodplain for right now.You don't realize just how much time and money it would take to prep JTS playing surface to accommodate soccer, do you?
Ever notice that a football field is "crowned" (there's a "high point" in the middle of the field and goes downhill as you move toward the sidelines)? Soccer fields are completely flat surfaces. So you either spend significant chunks of money a pop prepping the football field to be suitable to play soccer, or you have the team playing on a field not suitable for soccer. At that point, guess what? It's cheaper to build a new soccer facility.
We are not in a position to use AD funds in trying to compete in a facilities arms-race in non-revenue sports. The best way to get in that position is to invest in football and MBB.
FWIW- Colorado has much milder temperatures than Lincoln and Ames. I do agree with your premise though.
