|
|
Post by PantherU on Sept 16, 2013 10:09:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Sept 16, 2013 10:20:01 GMT -6
It starts by people not get the 2 for $99 seats and buying down low for Panthers games.
|
|
|
|
Post by skrapheap on Sept 17, 2013 11:14:13 GMT -6
Don't the seg fee monies already collected for a new arena need to be permitted to be used for a different project? Or was the original proposal open-ended enough? i ask because, so far as i am aware, the Student Life folks haven't approved replacements for the ousted student government folks, which would make the process of asking for student approval to be rather cumbersome (at the least)?
Or is the plan to build the facility using other money, and the fees already collected for the new arena will be left alone to pay for the eventual construction of that arena?
Inquiring minds like mine want to know...
|
|
|
|
Post by FTA1982 on Sept 23, 2013 9:16:18 GMT -6
It starts by people not get the 2 for $99 seats and buying down low for Panthers games. It starts by putting a quality product on the floor. At that point, people might actually buy seats down low. |
|
|
|
Post by ghostofdylan on Sept 23, 2013 10:08:30 GMT -6
It starts by people not get the 2 for $99 seats and buying down low for Panthers games. It starts by putting a quality product on the floor. At that point, people might actually buy seats down low. Dido! |
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Sept 23, 2013 11:43:37 GMT -6
To get a quality product it starts with getting better buildings and that takes money. The seats down low for Panther games is still a great price!
|
|
|
|
Post by FTA1982 on Sept 23, 2013 14:12:35 GMT -6
To get a quality product it starts with getting better buildings and that takes money. The seats down low for Panther games is still a great price! Tell that to Bruce Pearl, Ed McCants, Clay Tucker, Joah Tucker, Adrian Tigert, Dylan Page, and Boo Davis. |
|
|
|
Post by apaladino on Sept 23, 2013 20:54:18 GMT -6
Show us a will to win, and not a commitment to the status quo...
|
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Sept 24, 2013 6:59:37 GMT -6
To get a quality product it starts with getting better buildings and that takes money. The seats down low for Panther games is still a great price! Tell that to Bruce Pearl, Ed McCants, Clay Tucker, Joah Tucker, Adrian Tigert, Dylan Page, and Boo Davis. Bruce Pearl saw the need to get out of the KC and play games at the Cell. He was shocked to here that the Panthers were going to be playing games at the KC in 2012-13. |
|
|
|
Post by Super King on Sept 25, 2013 14:38:14 GMT -6
I'm gonna be the buzzkill and say that the will to spend $35 million on a basketball *practice facility* is exactly the mentality that's dismantling higher education in America.
|
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Sept 25, 2013 23:03:50 GMT -6
I'm gonna be the buzzkill and say that the will to spend $35 million on a basketball *practice facility* is exactly the mentality that's dismantling higher education in America. Actually, to be honest, if you want to talk about the problem with higher education, it's that intercollegiate sports are even attached to universities in the first place. Why should colleges and universities spend a single dime of resources on entertainment and competition in sports? It's unfortunate, but this is the game we play in America. Without sports, if you don't have a dynamite academic university you're left behind. Athletics are the front porch of the university, and without it no one is coming in the front door. If you really want to take a look at what a university is without athletics, just head down to Chicago and see Northeastern Illinois University. NEIU and UWM were very similar universities in the 1990's, but NEIU cut its athletics program and the university was never the same. UWM made an investment in athletics, and the success of men's basketball in the mid-2000's was a huge boon for a university that was trying to get its footing in research. If you want to see how much of a dent $35 million is in a university's budget, consider that this university has gone from a $400 million budget to a $700 million budget in under a decade and the university's part in the athletics budget is only $400,000, or $1.5 million if you include the tuition waivers they give to some athletes. I don't. The percentage of the athletics budget in the overall university budget is absolutely miniscule, so it's not out of the question to say "Hey, how about spending $35 million once and getting problems taken care of up and down the program." Let's not forget that this is a facility that we absolutely know, without a shadow of a doubt, that we will be using for 50 years. A new arena may prove to be too small when football has its inevitable downfall due to health issues. Let's not forget that this practice facility is unique to Milwaukee because we have the Bucks and specifically Herb Kohl from whom to raise money. The former senator wants the Bucks to remain in Milwaukee after he's gone, and if the Bucks are practicing in the best facility in the NBA (this would be it), that nudges things in Kohl's favor. So it's not like you're talking about $35 million of university funds. We used the $35 million mark because it represents the best facility in the country. It marks the kind of investment that turns this program from a mid-major with all the advantages in the world except for the fact that it practices in the worst facilities, into a mid-major that practices in a better facility than Indiana, Kentucky and Duke. You don't turn this program into an Indiana, Kentucky or Duke overnight. But you get rid of "out of the question" down the road. You change the conversation. You arm our coaches with this facility, you turn a new lead and change what our program is. The biggest problem our coaching staff has in recruiting - and this is true whether the head coach is Rob Jeter, Bruce Pearl, Bo Ryan or Ric Cobb - is that they have no evidence that the university gives a rat's ass about the program. They practice in sh*t, they play in sh*t (KC), and they have no support. If the university comes through with it, that leaves that question in the dust. there is no question - this university is behind the program. I invite anyone who disagrees to get in contact with any of these coaches - Bo may be hard to get a hold of but Bruce Pearl loves talking to old Panther fans and Rob is always around - and pose the question to them. What does this facility do for us? The program is still in the Horizon League, it's still in the same city as Marquette and the same state as Wisconsin. But none of those things have stood in the way of schools making a profit in athletics or advancing our brand. I guess what you have to do is look at it like this: athletics is marketing. A public research institution like UWM shouldn't have to put up billboards or make commercials or spend money on web advertising, but it does, because marketing is important for a university. Well, if you consider the news as a form of marketing - pushing our brand - than athletics is marketing. We don't play football, and men's basketball is far and away the second-most popular college sport. Not unlike UWM and UW-Madison in the UW system - UW-Madison is far and away the flagship, but UWM is undoubtedly second-best and third-best isn't even close. So it's either all or nothing. If a one-time $35 million practice facility is such an exorbitant price to pay (Five percent of the annual university budget), isn't spending $11 million annually on an athletics program? You equal that much in just over three years of paying for the program to play. This facility makes us a nationally relevant program. That's the long and short of it. People across the country will know UWM as a basketball school. Whether you like it or not, an athletics program is a HUUUUUUUGE part of a 17-year old's choice as to where they're going to college. And that's not just athletes - that's many kids. |
|
|
|
Post by striker14 on Sept 26, 2013 15:43:12 GMT -6
I'm gonna be the buzzkill and say that the will to spend $35 million on a basketball *practice facility* is exactly the mentality that's dismantling higher education in America. Actually, to be honest, if you want to talk about the problem with higher education, it's that intercollegiate sports are even attached to universities in the first place. Why should colleges and universities spend a single dime of resources on entertainment and competition in sports? It's unfortunate, but this is the game we play in America. Without sports, if you don't have a dynamite academic university you're left behind. Athletics are the front porch of the university, and without it no one is coming in the front door. If you really want to take a look at what a university is without athletics, just head down to Chicago and see Northeastern Illinois University. NEIU and UWM were very similar universities in the 1990's, but NEIU cut its athletics program and the university was never the same. UWM made an investment in athletics, and the success of men's basketball in the mid-2000's was a huge boon for a university that was trying to get its footing in research. If you want to see how much of a dent $35 million is in a university's budget, consider that this university has gone from a $400 million budget to a $700 million budget in under a decade and the university's part in the athletics budget is only $400,000, or $1.5 million if you include the tuition waivers they give to some athletes. I don't. The percentage of the athletics budget in the overall university budget is absolutely miniscule, so it's not out of the question to say "Hey, how about spending $35 million once and getting problems taken care of up and down the program." Let's not forget that this is a facility that we absolutely know, without a shadow of a doubt, that we will be using for 50 years. A new arena may prove to be too small when football has its inevitable downfall due to health issues. Let's not forget that this practice facility is unique to Milwaukee because we have the Bucks and specifically Herb Kohl from whom to raise money. The former senator wants the Bucks to remain in Milwaukee after he's gone, and if the Bucks are practicing in the best facility in the NBA (this would be it), that nudges things in Kohl's favor. So it's not like you're talking about $35 million of university funds. We used the $35 million mark because it represents the best facility in the country. It marks the kind of investment that turns this program from a mid-major with all the advantages in the world except for the fact that it practices in the worst facilities, into a mid-major that practices in a better facility than Indiana, Kentucky and Duke. You don't turn this program into an Indiana, Kentucky or Duke overnight. But you get rid of "out of the question" down the road. You change the conversation. You arm our coaches with this facility, you turn a new lead and change what our program is. The biggest problem our coaching staff has in recruiting - and this is true whether the head coach is Rob Jeter, Bruce Pearl, Bo Ryan or Ric Cobb - is that they have no evidence that the university gives a rat's ass about the program. They practice in sh*t, they play in sh*t (KC), and they have no support. If the university comes through with it, that leaves that question in the dust. there is no question - this university is behind the program. I invite anyone who disagrees to get in contact with any of these coaches - Bo may be hard to get a hold of but Bruce Pearl loves talking to old Panther fans and Rob is always around - and pose the question to them. What does this facility do for us? The program is still in the Horizon League, it's still in the same city as Marquette and the same state as Wisconsin. But none of those things have stood in the way of schools making a profit in athletics or advancing our brand. I guess what you have to do is look at it like this: athletics is marketing. A public research institution like UWM shouldn't have to put up billboards or make commercials or spend money on web advertising, but it does, because marketing is important for a university. Well, if you consider the news as a form of marketing - pushing our brand - than athletics is marketing. We don't play football, and men's basketball is far and away the second-most popular college sport. Not unlike UWM and UW-Madison in the UW system - UW-Madison is far and away the flagship, but UWM is undoubtedly second-best and third-best isn't even close. So it's either all or nothing. If a one-time $35 million practice facility is such an exorbitant price to pay (Five percent of the annual university budget), isn't spending $11 million annually on an athletics program? You equal that much in just over three years of paying for the program to play. This facility makes us a nationally relevant program. That's the long and short of it. People across the country will know UWM as a basketball school. Whether you like it or not, an athletics program is a HUUUUUUUGE part of a 17-year old's choice as to where they're going to college. And that's not just athletes - that's many kids. Funny story, I graduated high school in 2006 (UWM '11), prior to 2005 I didn't even know UWM existed. I would love for the basketball program to reach that level again, but what do you think the odds are of this happening? |
|
Lutzow10
Freshman
MILWAUKEE PROUD - PANTHER STRONG
|
Post by Lutzow10 on Sept 26, 2013 16:04:50 GMT -6
Theoretically speaking: If the university decided to pony up and build a 35 million dollar practice facility, whether that be with their own funds, with somebody else's funds, or somewhere in between (So say that is a given, the check has been written and the project is already underway), are you guys really so stubborn that you don't think having THE BEST college basketball practice facility in the country would drastically improve out program the minute it opened?
Yes, a winning team is the best recruiting tool, but you act like that is something that we should just do all of a sudden. When a team isn't winning and wants to, it does so through recruiting better players. But a team that isn't winning needs something else that will draw top players in to make winning possible. We already have a great city. How does adding the best practice facility in the country not put us over the top. did you see Oregon's nee practice facility for football? No scale that back to basketball standards and that is what we would have with a 35 million dollar investment. Based on what most of you are saying, your path to getting a championship team goes like this:
Generic Team has F players, they win 8 games. In the off season they use the recruiting tools they have (a great city, nice campus, a waterfront, a fairly decent arena) and land D players. This is hopefully followed by a record that reflects their skill. They then are able to recruit C level players, and so on and so on until you hopefully one day have an NCAA tournament team or better. Problem is things don't always work that smoothly. Teams will have players that don't buy in, players that are head cases, players that get injured, players that don't get the grades, players that transfer. Basically you are where most majors are, not going anywhere with the chance to maybe, just maybe hit the lottery by having a string of better and better years until you are a tournament team. And then its a matter of hoping upon hoping that none of those obstacles derail that winning.
Instead why not invest in a practice facility that says "f*** waiting years hoping we build this team to a championship level, lets skip a bunch of steps and win right now. We are committed, why don't you tag along for the ride?" Because I will tell you what. if you have an F year but have the top of the line practice facility in the NCAA, you go straight from an F team to B team.
And I know how a good number of you want Jeter gone, if you add a better coach, especially one who is better at recruiting, you might even go from F to A-.
|
|
|
|
Post by Super King on Sept 26, 2013 19:43:36 GMT -6
Oregon also very likely pays its athletes to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars under the table, and has a grade-A football program and a little angel named Phil Knight (who once refused to fund the $60 million renovation of Autzen Stadium until on-campus student groups stopped criticizing him for the way Nike treats its workers, by the way, lest you think we should be in the moral company of someone like that). This is a problem that extends way beyond colleges, and I'm not the only one expressing doubts about it. ( www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/09/have-sports-teams-brought-down-americas-schools.html ) Athletics are fun and interesting but at some point the facilities arms race is going to backfire and harm the schools -- they will always be more and more expensive than the last, and at some point will become simply too expensive to be feasible -- and it's a huge distraction from the purpose of the university, which is education. For 35 million dollars (which is a HUGE number, by the way, and you are delusional for considering it realistic) you should be able to put 6,000 seats in that practice facility and play games in it. The facilities obsession extends even beyond athletics; one of the reasons for the consistent rise in tuition over the last 7 or 8 years is the insistence on putting absurd amounts of money into administrator salaries in an attempt to keep those wages "competitive" (a la, for instance, Rob Jeter) and needless facility expansion (a la the new Union). When the public university becomes what is essentially a multimillion-dollar for-profit corporation, it's a demonstration of backwards priorities in a culture that values creature comforts like sports more than something with tangible (and 100% necessary) use like education and always harms the students of said school. Also just in general, the only reason recruits value something as stupid and superficial as an expensive basketball practice facility is because people keep building them. There's nothing in the essence of a fancy gym that makes you better at basketball, work harder, learn quicker, or win more. If we want to spend $35 million to become a better program, we should raise it twice (from our completely nonexistent donor base, by the way) and build the on-campus arena of our dreams. But oops, we *just* spent all that money on the needless facility expansion of the Klotsche Center, which now I guess we'll have to replace less than ten years later at a college with buildings that have stood for over century. So who's to say 15 years from now, in order to Remain Competitive, there won't be calls to tear down our renovate our beautiful $35 million practice facility and make it better, because University X is building an even more high-tech facility that puts ours to shame and puts us at risk of falling behind in the almighty Recruiting Arms Race. I'd rather field a losing team forever than contribute to this racket (in the recession too, ugh), quite honestly. |
|
Lutzow10
Freshman
MILWAUKEE PROUD - PANTHER STRONG
|
Post by Lutzow10 on Sept 27, 2013 0:38:20 GMT -6
Super King: your argument is a logical one. Honestly my post was less directed towards you if at all, and more towards the people who think that a top notch practice facility wouldn't help as much as winning, which they think is just a simple thing to start doing.
I am one of those people that cares way too much for the meaningless game of athletics in this country. And trust me I feel ashamed of myself for it. But it has a tight grasp on me and an even tighter grasp on the rest of america. We are brought up in a culture that treats athletes like gods to the point that we don't see how useless our obsession is. And trust me, i know it has gotten out of hand. But like jimmy said, from a university standpoint, it has gotten to the point where if you don't play the athletics game to the best of your ability, you will get lost in the sea of universities who do, and your academics suffer because of it. And only the top academic institutions are able to cope without athletics holding them up.
(OFF TOPIC WARNING: One thing I have seen, from a planning standpoint, is that schools that offer a school that is at the top of its fields hit the grant jack pot because foundations and organizations want to invest in your school so they can create a funnel of graduates to their company or foundation. An example is UCSF and their bio-medical school. They have received more grant money in the last 15-20 than just about everyone, if not everyone, because that school is one of the best in the country at what it does. And companies like Bayer AG, Pfizer, and other big name pharmaceutical companies want to invest in its success.
Obviously we don't have a school that could bring in the type of money that a bio-medical school can because obviously that is a pretty damn important field, but we do have a school that has the potential to be the best of its kind in the school of fresh water sciences. If we put a lot of our chips into that, and draw in organizations and foundations and big companies to start investing like they have done with USCF, that school will rake in money for academics, and in the process put our name on the map. Hell, UCSF was so successful, it basically helped developed the surrounding area on its own because of the companies that it attracted. Based on that model, you might see the School of Fresh Water Sciences boost Milwaukee's economy even.
So if we ever wanted to drop out of the athletics arms race I would say that is our best bet.)
|
|
