President Leath on SEZ and conference realignment

**DistrictCyclone** · 01-31-2013, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by cyclonedave25

I would say those schools have pretty large budgets no matter how many wins. Hasn't Texas been #1 in the country for almost forever, even during and after their bad seasons? I also see Tennessee is still #8 in the country and they are going on 3 or 4 consecutive losing seasons.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly...

Don't compare schools to each other; that's a pointless exercise. A losing Texas still makes more money than a winning Iowa State, just as a losing Iowa State still makes more money than a winning Valley High School. It's apples-to-oranges.

Instead, just focus on one school. In any given year, do you think a school makes more money if they win a lot of games, or lose a lot of games?

**stevefrench** · 01-31-2013, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by cyclonedave25

I would say those schools have pretty large budgets no matter how many wins. Hasn't Texas been #1 in the country for almost forever, even during and after their bad seasons? I also see Tennessee is still #8 in the country and they are going on 3 or 4 consecutive losing seasons.

TN is $200 million dollars in debt

**cyclonedave25** · 01-31-2013, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by DistrictCyclone

Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly...

Don't compare schools to each other; that's a pointless exercise. A losing Texas still makes more money than a winning Iowa State, just as a losing Iowa State still makes more money than a winning Valley High School. It's apples-to-oranges.

Instead, just focus on one school. In any given year, do you think a school makes more money if they win a lot of games, or lose a lot of games?

Well, obviously winning more will make you more money.
But, ok wait, what were we arguing about again?

**ISUagger** · 01-31-2013, 08:32 PM

Keep arguing. I get more credits.

**MJ271** · 01-31-2013, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by ISUagger

Keep arguing. I get more credits.

Credit whore

**DistrictCyclone** · 01-31-2013, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by cyclonedave25

Well, obviously winning more will make you more money.
But, ok wait, what were we arguing about again?

Ha, good question

I see the President's point; if they're going to be paying for the SEZ, they want to ensure that they have the revenue base to support it, which is influenced by our propensity to win. I'm sure they've crunched the numbers on this and probably revisit them often, and just want to make sure it's a financially sound decision (can't blame them for that). The fact that Leath seems knowledgable on the issue indicates that it's a priority or at least something he pays attention to, which is good news for fans who want to see the SEZ happen.

**cyclonedave25** · 01-31-2013, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by DistrictCyclone

Ha, good question

I see the President's point; if they're going to be paying for the SEZ, they want to ensure that they have the revenue base to support it, which is influenced by our propensity to win. I'm sure they've crunched the numbers on this and probably revisit them often, and just want to make sure it's a financially sound decision (can't blame them for that). The fact that Leath seems knowledgable on the issue indicates that it's a priority or at least something he pays attention to, which is good news for fans who want to see the SEZ happen.

That's true.
But, I think our fan base excitement is at an all time high right now. With the attendance records being broken the last couple of seasons, I think IF we had the money to bowl it in now, we would. (even with 6-7 win seasons) We obviously don't have the money because of the other projects that have been done, but let's just say we weren't in debt, do you think the SEZ would be getting done?

I can see your side of the argument, but what I'm trying to say is its more of a financial issue right now, not necessarily about how many wins our football has.

**cyfan92** · 01-31-2013, 08:56 PM

I'm still in the doghouse so I'm staying away from this topic...

I guess I'm troll status

**Psyclone** · 01-31-2013, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by cyclonedave25

I agree with everything except this.
If our team wins more, say 8-9 games instead of 6-7 games, the AD will be losing a ton of money on lost ticket revenue. Our stadium is packed with record setting numbers with 6 win seasons, just think if we start winning 8-9 games. And that point if they finally decide to build it, they will have lost millions of dollars in lost revenue.

The only thing that should be considered with the SEZ is money. Who cares how many games we win so long as people show up. Hell, if we were going 2-10 year in and out, but we still sold out our games it would make sense to expand, even though we sucked.

If we have finance the entire construction project, additional ticket sales will not cover the interest expense on the debt. So we would not be losing out on millions, we would be losing millions. For it to be done right, a large portion of it needs to be financed from donations, so that debt service burden doesn't cripple the athletic department. Just to get some round numbers to deal with, 5000 additional season tickets at say $200, generates $1M per year. If you could borrow 5% money, you could cover the interest for a $20M construction project. I think the plan was double or triple that, maybe more. I don't know what the real numbers would be, but you get a general idea why you just can't do it based on attendance.

You also don't want to get over extended to the point you can't fire, hire or retain coaches.

**psychlone99** · 01-31-2013, 10:24 PM

Nobody really believes that the University President would disclose truly useful information regarding significant capital investment projects that are dependent upon major private donations to a bunch of frat brothers, do they? Just conducting a quick survey...

**alarson** · 01-31-2013, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by psychlone99

Nobody really believes that the University President would disclose truly useful information regarding significant capital investment projects that are dependent upon major private donations to a bunch of frat brothers, do they? Just conducting a quick survey...

None of this is really new information, just phrased differently and clarified. Pollard has said similar in the past that at the current point we arent comfortable starting the project without either paying down the existing debt or having a major donor so that we can take on less debt.

What this does tell us? This is something still on the table. They have figures, theyve discussed plans for how to do it.. we're just waiting for the right time to do it. Thats a lot better than wouldve been said a few years ago.

**Cycsk** · 01-31-2013, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by alarson

None of this is really new information, just phrased differently and clarified. Pollard has said similar in the past that at the current point we arent comfortable starting the project without either paying down the existing debt or having a major donor so that we can take on less debt.

What this does tell us? This is something still on the table. They have figures, theyve discussed plans for how to do it.. we're just waiting for the right time to do it. Thats a lot better than wouldve been said a few years ago.

Exactly. He didn't shut it down. And he kept going with the consistent line we've heard from JP. Get a big donor, then let's talk.

**CapnCy** · 01-31-2013, 11:01 PM

Have your fraternity start a "SEZ Dues" to get the ball rolling. Convince other fraternity's to a philanthropy...a couple weekends do saltines and water date parties...you'll get this thing rolling.

**psychlone99** · 01-31-2013, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Cycsk

Exactly. He didn't shut it down. And he kept going with the consistent line we've heard from JP. Get a big donor, then let's talk.

Right. And I don't expect to hear anything [publicly] but the party line until THE announcement is made. I think we're very close, and talk that winning is factor--more so than private money--is just the party line. The stadium is full (arguably, beyond capacity) now, and expansion NOW could be justified to the Regents if we had the money.

**CapnCy** · 01-31-2013, 11:07 PM

Or, get your GSB buddies on it for a new fee. $15 million divided by 124,000 (31,000 students x 4 years) would be $120.96 a year in fees. No biggie...$60 a semester. Done! Election season is coming...2 Fanatics need to run for pres/vp of the student body....instead of the same old platforms of parking, communication to administration, tuition costs, and faculty evaluation.