Thoughts on new non-revenue sports facilities (w/photos)?

Submitted by Wolverine Devotee on

This was a discussion that broke out in Brian's writeup today on the athletic department. 

I said that the "palaces for non-revenue sports" will pay off. 

When I added photos to my comment, the reactions were interesting. 

ICYMI, Michigan began a project a few years ago that will finish up around 2018-19, where they will spend an estimated $250M on new facilities and/or upgrades for virtually every athletic facility other than big ones that everyone already knew about i.e Crisler and Michigan Stadium.

My question for you is what are your thoughts on these facilities? Are they over the top? Do you like that Michigan is building up to eventually become a top program in every sport once these things are finished and the recruiting is impacted by it?

Here are the photos for the facilities that are still in the works. The Soccer team centers, Lacrosse stadium and team center, TWO multi-sport Strength & Conditioning centers, new Indoor AND Outdoor Track stadiums and an indoor Rowing practice facility were the most recent projects approved by the Regents during the Fall.

The photos for the Lax stadium have not been released yet. 

Canham Natatorium renovations

Golf Clubhouse renovations

TWO Multi-Sport Strength & Conditioning centers (approved)

Lacrosse team centers (approved)

New arena for Volleyball, Men's Gymnastics, Wrestling, Cheer and Dance that will replace Cliff Keen Arena. This is scheduled to be the final piece of the puzzle of this project.

Ross Academic Center expansion

Indoor Rowing facility (approved)

Soccer team centers (approved)

Indoor and Outdoor (no photos yet) Track Stadiums (approved)

"Walk of Champions" aka an archway entrance to Michigan Stadium and a stone path that leads from the back of The Big House all the way back to Weidenbach Hall

Weidenbach Hall expansion

Old Lax Wolve

April 16th, 2015 at 11:40 AM ^

I'd choose turf over grass most every time. That new turf-grass stuff though, not the old knee-wrecker carpet at Oosterbaan.

It's hard to find/maintain a perfectly manicured grass field, and muddy conditions suck then ruin your field for the season.

Also, everything OSU = POS

Blue Durham

April 15th, 2015 at 3:13 PM ^

As a fan, its easy to see this stuff and say, wow, great, and I hope that the teams do great. But what is an alum to say after the university asks for a donation for the umpteenth time? What is a student/recent grad to think or say, when graduating with a debt of $50K - $75K? What are the voters of Michigan, who are asked for increases in the budget every year, to think? The average cost of a college education has increased above and beyond inflation every year for just about forever. In almost all sectors of the economy, there has been a constant move away from brick and mortar. There are pressures to contain costs in all industries and at all levels. And I think higher education is/will be no exception. I just don't think this is a good idea, at least on this scale. But one thing that is abundantly clear to me. There is no question that the university does not need my dough.

Blue Durham

April 15th, 2015 at 3:32 PM ^

So much of the money/donations are fungible. Donations to a specific area can be offset by a reduction from the general fund. Also, it is likely that there is a bit of cannibalism from the general fund due to the athletic department soliciting targeted funds from donors. There apparently was some issue with this during the Brandon years. But this is counter to the above that much of this is paid for by bonds for the Stadium/Crisler. If true, that money has to be paid back.

Blue Durham

April 15th, 2015 at 3:51 PM ^

Yes, the department is self-sustaining. It is one of the few in the country (and this likely will not go on in perpetuity). But it is not independent, nor should it operate as such. If a particular unit of a corporation operates at a profit, should it be entitled to spend all of the money? The athletic department benefits greatly from the university. It was built up by the university, uses its name and has its customers (students and then alumni) and donors hand-delivered to it. At no charge. The Athletic Department is not independent and owes everything it has to the university.

ThadMattasagoblin

April 15th, 2015 at 4:27 PM ^

They're part of the university but they raise the money themselves. I don't know if the hospital runs entirely on their own or receives tuition money from the university. If the hospital operates on their own, who cares if a donor provides the money for a massive renovation? Same thing with the athletic department.

Blue Durham

April 15th, 2015 at 5:47 PM ^

They don't raise money themselves and they don't operate independently of the university. They are University of Michigan employees. They get credibility and are able to do their job because of their association with the university. They operate on university grounds, not on athletic department grounds. Any liabilities that are incurred, the university is ultimately responsible.

The university put up all of the initial capital and risk in establishing, supporting and developing the athletic department. That it is now "self supporting" does not change the fact that it is wholly the property of the university.

The athletic department owes everything it has to the university, including its ability to raise funds. Donations are tax exempt due to it being part of the university. The AD could not exist without it being wholly "owned" by the university. Donations are generated because of this association because of student and alumni mailing lists. University of Michigan mailing lists.

Nobody donates to an NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA or tiddlywinks team. But people do donate to tax-exempt, university athletic departments. Without that "university" part, the "athletic department" part could not exist. All donations are generated by university employees, is to the university, and is only made possible by the university.

The "who cares" part of your comment. If I generated revenue while working for a successful subsidiary of a company, should I or that subsidiary be able to do what we want with the money? Why should the company care? Uh, yeah, trust me, they care, and a lot.

If I come up with a great idea that is patentable (I have a number of patents) while working for that successful, self-sufficient subsidiary, why shouldn't I or that subsidiary keep all of the benefits from that patent, why should that company care? Trust me again, they care, and a lot.

Just because a subsidiary is financially self-sufficient from its parent does not justify any argument that it should be allowed to determine what is done with the profits generated.

justingoblue

April 15th, 2015 at 6:13 PM ^

I realize you haven't claimed otherwise, but the AD needs approval from the Regents for each annual budget. Using your business analogy, the board of directors of the parent company has already approved every dime being spent on these facilities, not just the CEO of the subsidiary.

Blue Durham

April 15th, 2015 at 6:39 PM ^

Absolutely, and that is as it should be. 

But realize the larger points still remain. This is endorsed by the University at its highest level and it looks bad to:

  • alumni they are asking for donations
  • students who are struggling financially and are racking up a large debt
  • the tax payers of Michigan
  • season ticket holders like MGrowOld - er, I should have said ex-ticket holders

It should be kept in mind that money is fungible and that donations for one specific thing frees up money from the general fund for others.  Also, donations that Ross made to the AD very well could have been donated elsewhere, like he is prone to do.

And none of this touches upon another concern (I have it) that all of this is fairly risky.  Bonds have to be paid off.  Facilities have to be maintained (the more lavish, the more expensive). 

In general, the trend is away from brick and mortar in practically all industries.  Higher education is already way maxed out cost-wise, and I suspect that there is going to be a shake-out.  Investing in this kind of stuff, that is a long term commitment, in this kind of environment, that benefits a very, very small portion of the student population, and particulary regarding the internet and its impact on education, seems risky to me to the point of being reckless.

And they are going to ask alumni for $100 donations with the very top of the university authorizing relatively massive funds for facilities like this?  It would be one thing if these facilities were for educational/knowledge/research purposes (the things that are actually part of university's mission statement and within the experiences of the typical alum when they were a student).  But for this?

EDIT:  The smaller point also remains.  Somehow, there seems to be a lot of people that believe, because the AD is "self-sufficient" that it actually operates and is somehow independent of the univeristy itself, I guess since it has its own checking account or something.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The University of Michigan is 100% respsonsible for everything that the AD stands for, says, does, earns, costs and craps.  Everything.  Saying that the AD is entitled to money that it generates from donations "by itself" is clueless.  Its like saying that GM's subsidiaries are completely entitled to the profits that each generate.   

justingoblue

April 15th, 2015 at 10:13 PM ^

I wasn't trying to argue for or against the larger points, only mentioning that all of them are at least ostensibly considered by the guys and gals who are responsible for the big picture. Not so much "trust the regents" as "the arguments you're making should be voiced in their direction", since the posts above seem to focus on the administration within the department.

Alton

April 15th, 2015 at 4:16 PM ^

The Michigan athletic department reported a $5,100,000 projected surplus for 2014/15, but they did not say that it would be "donated" to the University--they were going to keep it for themselves.

Source:  http://www.mgoblue.com/genrel/061914aaa.html

I suppose most of that $5,100,000 ended up in Mr. Harbaugh's bank account, and that's probably a good place for it.  I would, however, be curious to see documentation of the last time the University of Michigan Athletic Department sent any non-symbolic portion of its surplus to the University of Michigan General Fund.

gwkrlghl

April 15th, 2015 at 3:18 PM ^

but sometimes I look at multi-million dollar athletic buildings being built for sports that average a relatively small amount of fans and I wonder "What's the point of doing this?". Ok, we're able to recruit the #1 rowing team in the country.....

If it all comes out of private donations, then whatever - enjoy your building, but if this is coming from ticket revenues, I know I'd rather see ticket prices lowered a hair for the 'big 3' sports than seeing the volleyball team work out in a multi-million dollar facility.

These sorts of facilities make me think about which side of the "Athletes should be paid" argument I'm on...

L'Carpetron Do…

April 15th, 2015 at 3:43 PM ^

I don't think it matters who pays for it.  Its obscene and stupid.  There's way too much money in college sports and the players don't get any of it. 

I don't mind them building a nice arena for gymnastics/wrestling/volleyball but there is no need for separate soccer and lacrosse stadiums or various clubhouses and academic centers for golf and basketball etc.  These are incredibly expensive projects that benefit an extremely small segment of the student population.

This type of spending sends the wrong message about collegiate athletics.  Its a public state university not a Fortune 500 company.

cheesheadwolverine

April 15th, 2015 at 4:10 PM ^

If possible I'd much rather the AD surplus be bigger and put back into the University (res life iirc) than spend money building a women's soccer locker room that is far nicer than any in the Premier League. But if it's coming from donations earmarked for athletics, sure, knock yourself out. As the Sprint ad says "money doesn't spend itself," and the NCAA won't let us spend it on the obvious.

Medic

April 15th, 2015 at 4:33 PM ^

Does Canham really need that much work? I'm sure it could use some love but holy shit. To think we used to lift weights in the basement and do drylands on the concourse. That S&C center is just absurd.

Kids are so spoiled these days.

That being said If they approve that Canham renovation I may have to travel back just to see it when it's done. It does look amazing on paper.

Bando Calrissian

April 15th, 2015 at 5:32 PM ^

This stuff is all really ugly and will look amazingly dated sooner than later. The DB administration picked some really shitty architects and designers across the board.

Muttley

April 15th, 2015 at 8:10 PM ^

look again at those facilities and try to make that argument again.

If the Athletic Department is going to commit to those Taj Mahals, then it is absolutely dependent upon the football program being massively profitable to pay for it.  At last count (pre-Harbaugh), the football team brought in ~$85 million in annual revenues on $25 million in annual expenses, generating an annual profit of ~$60 million.

The football program had been limping since 2008, but I think most believe revenues had been propped up by optimism for Michigan to return to its powerhouse status.  "We're rebuilding.  It takes a couple of years." etc.  IMO, last year was the first in which a majority of the fan base felt, "Oh god, we're mediocre, and there's no reason to think it's going to get any better."

The goodwill and optimism had been used up, and how long would folks pay a $75 - $600 / year PSD on top of a $65 /game ticket price?  Because of those across-the-board palacial facilities that you see, Michigan HAD to protect that $60 million annual profit.  And the added cost to bring in Harbaugh and a top notch staff?  A heckuva lot less than what Michigan was at risk of losing in revenue had we continued on into Azkaban.

 

Crisler 71

April 15th, 2015 at 8:33 PM ^

Other than being all shiny and new, with fresh paint, these don't look that impressive to me.  Any S&C facility is going to look the same, weights and a section in the middle for gassers.  the indoor track is just that.  A track inside a basic building.  The biggest thing about it is that now they have enough seats to actually host the B1G meet.  The indoor rowing facility is pretty much what used to be in West Engineering, two troughs of water.

The wrestling/gymnastics/dance arena is just a floor with raised seats around it.  Without it those meets would be in Crisler, like they used to be.  All the locker rooms are pretty, but they are just locker rooms.  The only difference between them and what I had at Yost 50 years ago is that the lockers are wood and it is more spacious.

In black & white, these ar just basic buildings and arenas.  It is the blue & yellow paint and the pictures that make them impressive.