Do we have too much $$$?
Theres no such thing as too much money
A wise old sage once said: "Mo money, Mo problems."
Of course, I wouldn't know, but I would like to try and find out.
A few friends (and loyal fans) have been priced out of the market by the seat taxes. Maybe that has to be, I don't know. But to then see this kind of money being spent on these kinds of things just disappoints me.
As one of those loyal fans who has been priced out (and former 14 year season ticket holder with two UM degrees), I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment.
While I understand that law of supply and demand, it still surprises me that with the economy being so poor over the last few years, tickets just seem to get harder and harder to obtain.
There is a roof, just ask Penn State. However, Dave Brandon will do his very best to bump up against it and not exceed it.
I'm sure some people said the same thing about spending almost a million on a 85,000 seat stadium to be used exclusively for football.
Ans that was before the Great Depression.
I believe he was an undergrad at that time...
If you've got to be in an arms race, you might as well win.
1. The money is obviously there. It's not as if DB is taking a loan to pay for this stuff.
2. It's not as if the rest of campus is hurting for anything. Have you seen the renovations to Angell and the new Life Sciences building?!
I visited Raleigh-Durham two years ago and was impressed by their museum/HOF for their basketball team. I would argue that Michigan's football team is more storied than Duke basketball. It is only fitting that there be a museum.
You shouldn't say "their" about Raleigh-Durham when referring to Duke. Duke is Durham and NC State is Raleigh and they don't particularly like each other. It's not nearly as palpable as UNC - Duke, but the lines in the sand are drawn, you do not....
2. It's not as if the rest of campus is hurting for anything. Have you seen the renovations to Angell and the new Life Sciences building?!
I don't know so much about that. I think the University needs to do some serious introspection at tuition costs. I'm coming out several tens of thousands of dollars in debt - which is fine because I knew what I was getting myself into and worked my ass off to make sure that it would be a sound investment.
But at some point, UM is going to start pricing out the lower middle class that aren't eligible for need-based scholarships but also can't have family pay for their education.
I'd much rather see more (they already give some) money from athletics donated to the general scholarship fund.
No, people have too many opinions about things they can't control wanting it their way too often. I don't like a big sign but the majority does and it's obvious by looking around the country. But folks want to pout and stomp their feet, my way my way. I like the this is Michigan fergodsakes attitude when it is positive but I'm often embarrassed by arrogance that can accompany that attitude. We are not above everyone else, if we wanted to be terrible people thinking we are we should have gone to ND.
You have to spend money, to make money... At least at this level.... (leaders and best for a reason...
I thought it was $2.5 million on the sign, not $12 million.
the balance is for Schembechler Hall
"Too much money" is not a bad thing, but I question the selection of places to spend it. Perhaps some of the non-revenue sports could use that $12M in a way that would provide more value to the university and student-atheletes than a huge sign and building expansion that will primarily benefit football.
A rising tide (or fund balance) should lift ALL boats--not just the flagship.
isn't the board intended to advertise the non-rev sports?
I must ask what constitutes "too much money" in this case, considering that most Division I athletic departments actually don't have any money at the end of the day.
For those interested, here is the FY 2013 budget - link.
I dare say that we have one of the more intelligently managed athletic departments, going on over a decade of being in the black - there are only a handful of Division I programs that could say that, I imagine. Further, it is one of literally a few athletic departments that is self-sufficient and not reliant on the parent school to remain solvent. We should be proud of that, I believe.
I believe it was stated in a few articles posted some time back that a fair number of the small projects in the grand renovation scheme for South Campus were going to be funded from revenue generated by gifts and donations essentially, so the marquee will likely come from money freely given to the department, not necessarily come from the revenue generated normally.
The fact is that, when you have a well-run athletic department with storied programs and a devoted alumni/alumnae and fan base, you're going to make a profit AND have money given to you in order to ensure that you can continue to provide top-notch facilities and services to student-athletes. There is no reason not to continue to be first-class.
If Brandon keeps raising the price and we keep paying then it is not too much money. It IS a bit disturbing to think how much we are wiling to spend on watching people run around on a field/court, but this is 'Murricah, if you don't like it you can GIT OUT!!
this is totally unrelated to this thread, but i love your avatar.
"I wash myself with a rag on a stick." hahaha
Maybe giving money to charity, Mott hospital, or providing grants to sports psychologists would be a better idea? You sure are right though, there has been a ton money spent on Michigan Athletics (read Basketball and Football). I just went on Google and Bing to try to compare current day appearance to the appearance of the new Bo hall and Marquee, all the sites are at least two construction seasons behind and it looks nothing similar to current day. Sheesh.
Money can't buy you love, but it sure as shit can buy you happiness. You ever been sad on a jet ski? Hell no. I've been alone on a jet ski, but I've never been sad.
Too bad you can't ride a jet ski 24/7.
If I were rich I could. Happiness.
But let's be honest. I'd rather have too much than too little.
I could care less about the money spent to put up a (dumb) marquee for 2.5 mil if they just have it laying around but I start to care more when we see the ticket prices rise by $5-10 dollars every year.
I understand the economics of the situation (keep raising the price until they stop paying) and IIRC Brian did a nice cost analysis a while back but we also have a good 20,000 more paying patrons in our stadium than most ADs so why the hell do I need to pay $85 bucks a ticket to watch UMass from row 80 from the south endzone.
I'm in that young professional part of my life where I *want* to spend the money on tickets so I do but damn man, I'm not sure how much more of this I can take. I will be interested to see what comes about the planned expansion in the south endzone as frankly I dont see the demand being high enough to sustain those additional seats.
But interestingly my experience is with older fans now being priced out of the market.
Couldn't care less...
I don't see what the big deal is... I see this on other campuses. Georgia tech has a marquee on 85/75. This is not abnormal.
Supply and Demand.. If the seats continue to be full and people keep paying the prices for the tickets then I have no problem.. Schem Hall and Marque are going to be paid for by Ath. Dept... So in Short, NO
You have to spend money if you want to make money. This is as ridiculous as the whole "I can't believe Brady Hoke makes so much money when professors are living in poverty with their $110,000/year salary" thing. People, you have to spend money to make money. This involves keeping up your stadium and its peripherals. Unfortunately, nowadays this is what draws in recruits. I know that you can scrutinize each individual case and question whether the spending is "worth it" but as a whole, this stuff needs to be done.
let me know.
Okay I'm sorry if I overshot what an average professor's salary is. I really wouldn't know. It doesn't change the point though.
Try around $45k for a junior professor without tenure. The only profs making $110k are department heads and a select number of medical, law school, and business school faculty members. Those faculty members bring in much more than that in grants.
Assistant Professor: $85,800
Associate Professor: $98,200
To expand upon the point, the average "professor" actually has the title of "Instructor," so it is not incorrect to say "professors" aren't all making 100k.
In fact, I think the technical "professor" term may refer to a tenured professor, but now I'm just speculating.
Instructor and Assistant Professor don't usually have tenure (and Instructor usually won't be a tenure track position, as Assistant Professor is usually the junior-most tenure track rank), Associate Professor's and Professor's generally have tenure.
Looking at the Ford School, it looks like there are equal numbers of full professors and lecturers (Instructor from the first link) with a smaller but relatively equal amount of assistant and associate professors. That could be a unique case compared to LSA or another college, I don't know and don't really want to spend the time looking.
Just to clarify, I don't think all faculty anywhere are making $110,000. It was just something I thought might be worth a quick Google and copy/pasted the salaries for different seniorities.
I also started to look, but then realized there's simply no fast way to do it.
That's the salary of every U-M employee. I quickly went through some of my grad school instructors and only one was over 100k. Most were instructors or Assoc/Asst Profs. Only one full-blown prof, whatever all that means. Most of the 200k+ educators are in med school, FWIW.
Here's a non-patisan political observation regarding money...
In 1960, JFK ran the federal government on just $100 Billion. (Adjusted for inflation, this would be around $800 Billion today.)
Our current federal budget is around $2.5 Trillion (about 3 times as much).
Some say it's too much in the hands of the Feds. Others say it's not enough.
The perception of money is a funny thing.
150,000,000 less people and 1 less military industrial complex to support.
$2.627 trillion (requested)
$2.469 trillion (enacted)
$3.729 trillion (requested)
$3.796 trillion (enacted)
But hey a 100 billion here and a 100 billion there, eventually you're talking about real money, right?
And it's more than $12 million for a sign and museum; Schembechler has been outdated for awhile. They're going to fix it up. And really, what did the upgrades to the Art Museum cost? No one complains about that. And shouldn't.
I also get the feeling that a lot of people complaining about spending money would still be complaining if we started winning 4 games a year because our facilities looked like Indians's.
I want our core facilities to crumble so we can't recruit top talent and we don't win more than 4 games per year. That's what I meant when I said I want our teams to thrive.
Jeez, we can't have a serious and nuanced discussion even on MGoBlog?
You say we shouldn't be spending money on upgrading Schembechler Hall. Schembechler Hall certainly isn't crumbling and is serviceable. But it's been surpassed not ven too long after it was built; and that was a long time ago. It sticks out like a sore thumb on the athletic campus. Recruits are impressed by those things. Upgrading basketball's facilities certainly got us back in that recruiting game. Football isn't so bad, but they're competing ith the best of the best too. You don't need to be at the point of crumbling to need to upgrade. The only one who seems to have problems with nuance is you, and you're mad at MGoBoard's level of discussion because a lot of people disagree with you.
What I'm disappointed about in this discussion is you painting me as someone who wants to let our facilities get to the equivalent of Indiana's, and then acusing me of being someone who would turn around and bitch about our facilities. Uh, no, that's not me. I support what was done to the Big House and Crisler, and other facility upgrades too. I understand these upgrades cost a ton of money, and maybe they required the new seat taxes. Notice in my posts where I've acknowleded some level of this stuff may be the price of competing at a level for the president's cup?
My concern is that perhaps (alert: nuance here, so I'll repeat ... PERHAPS) the revenue structure has resulted in Brandon actually getting more revenue than we truly need to compete at the top level. And PERHAPS one of the costs of that revenue generating model is that long-term, loyal fans are being dumped by the wayside because they can't afford to pay the steeply rising costs of tickets and taxes. PERHAPS the revenue model is flooding Brandon's bank account and he needs to find things to spend money on quickly, so he doesn't have a ballooning fund balance.
I think we may still be able to win 11 games without the marquee. And I think, perhaps, the Glick Fieldhouse and new weight room (twice in the last few years?) will help with recruiting for a few years, even if we don't have a museum in the interim.
I don't care at all about neg-bomb voting or if others disagree with me and feel like our finances are just where they should be. This is why created the thread, to discuss this. What I do care about is when people like you paint people like me as taking an extreme position when that is not what I've done. You should settle down, and not feel the need to paint me as someone who is ready to let our facilities get to Indiana's levels, when nothing I've written supports that view.
... a really uninspiring (to me) facade/museum(?) ". That doesn't sound like you're that unsure. So let's break it down. Does $2.8 million (which is expensive, maybe too much so, but not the 1st or primary cost of that $12 mil) help us win football games? No. That's not it's point. It's to try and get more people to go to OTHER sports. And will that help recruit in those sports? Yes. Recruits don't want to play in empty arenas. Heck, even basketball is embarrassingly empty at times. Compared to MSU or Duke's environment, it's going to hurt going after the same guy.
The weight room wasn't changed to impress recruits, but to fit the styles of different strength coaches and their goals. If you don't have players being the best they can be or the system they're in, you lose more games. And I'm not sure what other football buildings you've seen, but Schembechler was almost outdated before it was finished. Why does it need to be fixed when you have Glick and weight room improvements? Because you're oing against schools that have cutting edge facilitates for all three and more. Check out Texas, Oregon, and the other Jones.
You are basically asking not that we have bottom of the barrel facilities, but second class facilities, because they're "good enough", and will save everyone a buck. And prices are getting worrisome. But you could say the same thing about the University as a whole and every increasing tuition. They can't afford O have 2nd hand results, because they have to pay for everything.
They should build a new place to play roller hockey since they the tuba players and their bad knees took elbel away from us
Are we too rich?
Or too thin...