|
|
Post by evanceg on Jan 28, 2022 12:16:12 GMT -5
There's a long thread on the 24/7 Lion's Pride board titled "PSU Facilities Discussion" the upshot of which is that our facilities are badly lagging behind our national and B1G competitors and that we must invest serious money even to get back in the game much less contend for national and conference championships. Much of the discussion centers around the dorms that PSU student-athletes (read: football players) are housed in, how they are run-down and outdated, and how it has/will cost us recruits when compared to the newish gold-plated athletics dorms that the Alabamas, Georgias, Clemsons and Ohio States offer.
Personally, I'm not buying it. First, I'm not a fan of athletic dorms, I think student-athletes should be housed among and with regular students. I'm an old school fuddy-duddy on that, I know.
Second, as a student (Bronze Age, I think it was) I lived in dorms that were pretty old and spartan and we had a great time. Students abuse property anyhow and it makes no sense to provide four-star accommodations that are just going to have holes literally punched in the walls and covered up by Playboy centerfolds. If you want to talk about some cosmetic improvements here and there and making sure that student-athletes have beds appropriate to their height and weight, fine, but I see no need to go much beyond that. I don't see the need to spend $200MM on a new athletic dorm, we have more pressing priorities in ICA and the University.
There's nothing wrong with Rec Hall as a WVB venue and while I haven't seen the locker room I do recall some improvements made there a couple short years ago. What about our facilities prevents any student-athlete from succeeding in their sport? Cosmetic improvements to facilities don't help you play better. This discussion is all about offering high school juniors and seniors shiny, sparkling objects to gaze at.
A new or expanded natatorium would make a huge difference to the success of our swimming and diving programs. Spending a million dollars to level the football practice field so that our players don't have to walk down a five-foot slope to reach the synthetic turf field won't yield us a single additional point in any Penn State football game.
|
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Jan 28, 2022 12:36:50 GMT -5
There's a long thread on the 24/7 Lion's Pride board titled "PSU Facilities Discussion" the upshot of which is that our facilities are badly lagging behind our national and B1G competitors and that we must invest serious money even to get back in the game much less contend for national and conference championships. Much of the discussion centers around the dorms that PSU student-athletes (read: football players) are housed in, how they are run-down and outdated, and how it has/will cost us recruits when compared to the newish gold-plated athletics dorms that the Alabamas, Georgias, Clemsons and Ohio States offer. Personally, I'm not buying it. First, I'm not a fan of athletic dorms, I think student-athletes should be housed among and with regular students. I'm an old school fuddy-duddy on that, I know. Second, as a student (Bronze Age, I think it was) I lived in dorms that were pretty old and spartan and we had a great time. Students abuse property anyhow and it makes no sense to provide four-star accommodations that are just going to have holes literally punched in the walls and covered up by Playboy centerfolds. If you want to talk about some cosmetic improvements here and there and making sure that student-athletes have beds appropriate to their height and weight, fine, but I see no need to go much beyond that. I don't see the need to spend $200MM on a new athletic dorm, we have more pressing priorities in ICA and the University. There's nothing wrong with Rec Hall as a WVB venue and while I haven't seen the locker room I do recall some improvements made there a couple short years ago. What about our facilities prevents any student-athlete from succeeding in their sport? Cosmetic improvements to facilities don't help you play better. This discussion is all about offering high school juniors and seniors shiny, sparkling objects to gaze at. A new or expanded natatorium would make a huge difference to the success of our swimming and diving programs. Spending a million dollars to level the football practice field so that our players don't have to walk down a five-foot slope to reach the synthetic turf field won't yield us a single additional point in any Penn State football game. I'm with you on this, but I suspect we are in the minority (if we were teenagers, which you, and now I, admit is an age way distant in the rear-view mirror, I think we would be in a distinct minority). But I remember back in the day, when Paterno was building his "Grand Experiment." The Oklahomas and Alabamas of the world had what were, for the time, luxurious athletic dorms. Kentucky's basketball program was another (I think at that dorm, they had a valet to bring the "student athletes" their monthly payoff envelopes directly to their rooms -- I'm kidding about that last part). Paterno decided to turn things upside down, making a virtue out of a perceived weakness: he bragged about not having athletic dorms; he, like you, argued that college life was best experienced, shockingly, if lived as an actual college student. The problem today is that many of the top "athlete students" have little to no interest in college, per se. It's about the sport. That always was true, to a degree, but it's more true now (he asserts, with zero factual backup). For what it's worth, I've heard rumors that it's likely Penn State will have a new athletic housing complex within the next two to five years. It would house no more than 70% scholarship athletes (to meet some sort of NCAA requirement) and would be built with significant private funding. So, arms race continues? |
|
|
|
Post by elliotberton on Jan 28, 2022 14:01:48 GMT -5
So respectfully, from a recruiting perspective, facility upgrades may be old school thinking. Instead of finding and spending money on facilities, contributions should be sought for funding the players themselves through Nils (eg: Come to PSU and we will make sure you get sponsored for your photograph). Frankly, if enough player sponsorship could be generated, even scholarship offers could be irrelevant (yeah, I'm the best paid walk on).
A player might be swayed by a shiny new exercise room, but I wonder if the young person might be more interested in earning $$$ and thus be less concerned if the workout room is passe, and South Gym and Rec Hall are "quaint."
|
|
|
|
Post by elliotberton on Jan 28, 2022 14:04:41 GMT -5
A new or expanded natatorium would make a huge difference to the success of our swimming and diving programs. Spending a million dollars to level the football practice field so that our players don't have to walk down a five-foot slope to reach the synthetic turf field won't yield us a single additional point in any Penn State football game. And yet the Natatorium is utilized for YMCA State swimming championships and other large events. I am doubtful that the top National swimmers would come to PSU even if we had the newest swim facilities in the Country. |
|
|
|
Post by dc155 on Jan 28, 2022 14:23:23 GMT -5
A new or expanded natatorium would make a huge difference to the success of our swimming and diving programs. Spending a million dollars to level the football practice field so that our players don't have to walk down a five-foot slope to reach the synthetic turf field won't yield us a single additional point in any Penn State football game. And yet the Natatorium is utilized for YMCA State swimming championships and other large events. I am doubtful that the top National swimmers would come to PSU even if we had the newest swim facilities in the Country. I'll probably receive some backlash for this thinking: I used to find pride in PSU having more athletic programs than most schools, but I've grown to the opinion that maybe less might be more - quantity vs. quality. If we were to eliminate the programs that have been historically unsuccessful at PSU (and in the Northeast in general), we could redirect those football revenues to the programs that we do have success in... helping them to better thrive. For example, how much $$$ could we pour into upgrading Rec Hall and Jeffrey Field if we didn't have a new 130,000 sq.ft. natatorium and a 100,000 sq.ft. indoor tennis complex on the long list of needs? Or we could leave Rec Hall as-is and actually build the "Olympic Training Center" that was briefly mentioned several years ago. I do agree that the top swimmers probably wouldn't come to PSU even with a new natatorium. |
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Jan 28, 2022 14:33:47 GMT -5
And yet the Natatorium is utilized for YMCA State swimming championships and other large events. I am doubtful that the top National swimmers would come to PSU even if we had the newest swim facilities in the Country. I'll probably receive some backlash for this thinking: I used to find pride in PSU having more athletic programs than most schools, but I've grown to the opinion that maybe less might be more - quantity vs. quantity. If we were to eliminate the programs that have been historically unsuccessful at PSU (and in the Northeast in general), we could redirect those football revenues to the programs that we do have success in... helping them to better thrive. For example, how much $$$ could we pour into upgrading Rec Hall and Jeffrey Field if we didn't have a new 130,000 sq.ft. natatorium and a 100,000 sq.ft. indoor tennis complex on the long list of needs? Or we could leave Rec Hall as-is and actually build the "Olympic Training Center" that was briefly mentioned several years ago. I do agree that the top swimmers probably wouldn't come to PSU even with a new natatorium. And if you (or I) moved on to eliminating programs (as opposed to merely eliminating new facilities for programs) you (or I) woud really start taking the heat. Look at Stanford and wrestling (I think sailing was also going to be eliminated). Major alumae revolt (though those alumnae had the $$ to say "We'll pay for it). |
|
|
|
Post by goldengoal on Jan 28, 2022 17:26:05 GMT -5
Respectfully, I think you are wrong about the reason Stanford wrestling was retained. The adminstration was content to ignore the alumni protests (which were really quite limited). The program was saved solely by Shane Griffith, who, wearing a plain black singlet with no Stanford branding, won the 165-pound national championship last year. That made the issue a national one, at least among wrestling fans, and put major heat on the Stanford athletic department.
|
|
|
|
Post by pennstate1973 on Jan 29, 2022 11:40:57 GMT -5
Respectfully, I think you are wrong about the reason Stanford wrestling was retained. The adminstration was content to ignore the alumni protests (which were really quite limited). The program was saved solely by Shane Griffith, who, wearing a plain black singlet with no Stanford branding, won the 165-pound national championship last year. That made the issue a national one, at least among wrestling fans, and put major heat on the Stanford athletic department. Eleven sports were eliminated. The reason they all were re-instated was because big donors threatened to withhold future donations to the athletic department and the endowment in general. It was primarily about money and to a lesser extent negative publicity.
FWIW the Stanford coach complains his WVB volleyball program gets substantially less in revenue than B1G schools because B1G schools get much more in TV revenue from football. So no matter where things stand financially at PSU, there are many schools in a lesser position financially.
|
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Jan 29, 2022 13:02:30 GMT -5
Respectfully, I think you are wrong about the reason Stanford wrestling was retained. The adminstration was content to ignore the alumni protests (which were really quite limited). The program was saved solely by Shane Griffith, who, wearing a plain black singlet with no Stanford branding, won the 165-pound national championship last year. That made the issue a national one, at least among wrestling fans, and put major heat on the Stanford athletic department. Eleven sports were eliminated. The reason they all were re-instated was because big donors threatened to withhold future donations to the athletic department and the endowment in general. It was primarily about money and to a lesser extent negative publicity.
FWIW the Stanford coach complains his WVB volleyball program gets substantially less in revenue than B1G schools because B1G schools get much more in TV revenue from football. So no matter where things stand financially at PSU, there are many schools in a lesser position financially.
Thanks for the info. |
|
|
|
Post by goldengoal on Jan 29, 2022 14:51:25 GMT -5
Poor Stanford with the third (or fourth, if you count Texas system-wide) highest endowment in the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Jan 29, 2022 15:11:06 GMT -5
Poor Stanford with the third (or fourth, if you count Texas system-wide) highest endowment in the country. Well, why don't they save money by firing all of their assistants, and just replace them with "Google Assistant." Like this: Head Coach "OK Google, complain to the officials about their terrible calls." Google Assistant: "Would you like me to tell them a joke?" |
|
|
|
Post by ethankasales on Jan 29, 2022 17:41:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ethankasales on Feb 2, 2022 0:10:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Feb 2, 2022 5:59:28 GMT -5
Very cool, but why leave out 2007 to 2009?  ?? |
|
|
|
Post by evanceg on Feb 2, 2022 10:42:43 GMT -5
An expensive solution in search of a problem. If I'm the Auburn AD, there's no way I approve this expense. Were Auburn players complaining that their uniforms didn't fit? Is uniform fit a real problem in collegiate sports? Football helmets need to fit precisely, I get that, but that's not what this machine appears to do. Just a fancy trinket to entertain callow teenagers. So many better things on which to spend money, whether it be the athletic department or the university at large. |
|
