HighlandsApp wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:00 pm

AppinVA wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:53 am

APPdiesel wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:22 am

What I said was if the athletic department feels like they need this to compete then I want them to have it. But I questioned what a 100 yd IPF accomplishes that a 75yd IPF doesn’t, especially considering Shawn Clark’s preference to practice outside whenever possible.

It’ll obviously be different circumstances from when Sofield was built once we have the space to expand after softball moves. Our IPF isn’t constrained by available land.

I basically asked if this was a want or a need. But hey, if we have a donor willing to pay for it, by all means make it happen.

One thing we could do with a new IPF is host indoor track meets. As it is our team practices on the concourse of the HCC.

Well that does make it well worth it. I wonder if an elevated track inside can also be used for the general student and faculty population?

When you look at the North end zone facility that debt service is being paid out of:

1-food services budget
2-bookstore budget
3-general university budget for the ballroom
4-an outside tenant for space in 3rd floor
5-athletic budget

The University could again be creative with parts of paying for the new indoor practice facility out of student recreation fees.

So theft since athletics would not dedicate any guarantied time that anyone besides athletics(FOOTBALL) to use it. The bookstore, Grandview catering and events, and the tenant all have the main uses of their spaces.

An indoor track is ideally 200 meters flat. This would be inside of the regulation football field that the space would be expanded to. There is no way that the FBall team will allow a facility that has anything over the playing surface so that they cannot have full movement and passing drills.

appgrouch wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:16 am

HighlandsApp wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:00 pm

AppinVA wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:53 am

APPdiesel wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:22 am

What I said was if the athletic department feels like they need this to compete then I want them to have it. But I questioned what a 100 yd IPF accomplishes that a 75yd IPF doesn’t, especially considering Shawn Clark’s preference to practice outside whenever possible.

It’ll obviously be different circumstances from when Sofield was built once we have the space to expand after softball moves. Our IPF isn’t constrained by available land.

I basically asked if this was a want or a need. But hey, if we have a donor willing to pay for it, by all means make it happen.

One thing we could do with a new IPF is host indoor track meets. As it is our team practices on the concourse of the HCC.

Well that does make it well worth it. I wonder if an elevated track inside can also be used for the general student and faculty population?

When you look at the North end zone facility that debt service is being paid out of:

1-food services budget
2-bookstore budget
3-general university budget for the ballroom
4-an outside tenant for space in 3rd floor
5-athletic budget

The University could again be creative with parts of paying for the new indoor practice facility out of student recreation fees.

So theft since athletics would not dedicate any guarantied time that anyone besides athletics(FOOTBALL) to use it. The bookstore, Grandview catering and events, and the tenant all have the main uses of their spaces.

An indoor track is ideally 200 meters flat. This would be inside of the regulation football field that the space would be expanded to. There is no way that the FBall team will allow a facility that has anything over the playing surface so that they cannot have full movement and passing drills.

Current and new IPF is/will be available to all athletic programs. Multiple times we would have to wait to go in because other programs were using it.

But no on the increase in student fees to fund it. We aren't JMU. We don't need students to fund 70% of our budget.

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:24 am

appgrouch wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:16 am

HighlandsApp wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:00 pm

AppinVA wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:53 am

APPdiesel wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:22 am

What I said was if the athletic department feels like they need this to compete then I want them to have it. But I questioned what a 100 yd IPF accomplishes that a 75yd IPF doesn’t, especially considering Shawn Clark’s preference to practice outside whenever possible.

It’ll obviously be different circumstances from when Sofield was built once we have the space to expand after softball moves. Our IPF isn’t constrained by available land.

I basically asked if this was a want or a need. But hey, if we have a donor willing to pay for it, by all means make it happen.

One thing we could do with a new IPF is host indoor track meets. As it is our team practices on the concourse of the HCC.

Well that does make it well worth it. I wonder if an elevated track inside can also be used for the general student and faculty population?

When you look at the North end zone facility that debt service is being paid out of:

1-food services budget
2-bookstore budget
3-general university budget for the ballroom
4-an outside tenant for space in 3rd floor
5-athletic budget

The University could again be creative with parts of paying for the new indoor practice facility out of student recreation fees.

So theft since athletics would not dedicate any guarantied time that anyone besides athletics(FOOTBALL) to use it. The bookstore, Grandview catering and events, and the tenant all have the main uses of their spaces.

An indoor track is ideally 200 meters flat. This would be inside of the regulation football field that the space would be expanded to. There is no way that the FBall team will allow a facility that has anything over the playing surface so that they cannot have full movement and passing drills.

Current and new IPF is/will be available to all athletic programs. Multiple times we would have to wait to go in because other programs were using it.

But no on the increase in student fees to fund it. We aren't JMU. We don't need students to fund 70% of our budget.

How much do they fund now?

appgrouch wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:16 am

HighlandsApp wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:00 pm

AppinVA wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:53 am

APPdiesel wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:22 am

What I said was if the athletic department feels like they need this to compete then I want them to have it. But I questioned what a 100 yd IPF accomplishes that a 75yd IPF doesn’t, especially considering Shawn Clark’s preference to practice outside whenever possible.

It’ll obviously be different circumstances from when Sofield was built once we have the space to expand after softball moves. Our IPF isn’t constrained by available land.

I basically asked if this was a want or a need. But hey, if we have a donor willing to pay for it, by all means make it happen.

One thing we could do with a new IPF is host indoor track meets. As it is our team practices on the concourse of the HCC.

Well that does make it well worth it. I wonder if an elevated track inside can also be used for the general student and faculty population?

When you look at the North end zone facility that debt service is being paid out of:

1-food services budget
2-bookstore budget
3-general university budget for the ballroom
4-an outside tenant for space in 3rd floor
5-athletic budget

The University could again be creative with parts of paying for the new indoor practice facility out of student recreation fees.

So theft since athletics would not dedicate any guarantied time that anyone besides athletics(FOOTBALL) to use it. The bookstore, Grandview catering and events, and the tenant all have the main uses of their spaces.

An indoor track is ideally 200 meters flat. This would be inside of the regulation football field that the space would be expanded to. There is no way that the FBall team will allow a facility that has anything over the playing surface so that they cannot have full movement and passing drills.

Tracks in the indoor practice facilities that I've seen being built by other universities have the track elevated that that way there is plenty of room for two things to be going on obviously with a football something could bounce into the track area. I don't know anything about what we could be planning to building but that has what I've seen in other schools new facilities.

Of course, indoor tracks are usually not permanent in such facilities. Generally, would be used when football is not likely using the entire space.

hapapp wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:54 pm

Of course, indoor tracks are usually not permanent in such facilities. Generally, would be used when football is not likely using the entire space.

And that is the thing. To be of real use, it would need to be in place from Nov - Feb when the indoor season is going on to be of use.
With a "portable" system you would also have to have storage for all the parts of the track and whatever would go down on the turf to protect it.

bcoach wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:49 am

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:24 am

appgrouch wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:16 am

HighlandsApp wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:00 pm

AppinVA wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:53 am

One thing we could do with a new IPF is host indoor track meets. As it is our team practices on the concourse of the HCC.

Well that does make it well worth it. I wonder if an elevated track inside can also be used for the general student and faculty population?

When you look at the North end zone facility that debt service is being paid out of:

1-food services budget
2-bookstore budget
3-general university budget for the ballroom
4-an outside tenant for space in 3rd floor
5-athletic budget

The University could again be creative with parts of paying for the new indoor practice facility out of student recreation fees.

So theft since athletics would not dedicate any guarantied time that anyone besides athletics(FOOTBALL) to use it. The bookstore, Grandview catering and events, and the tenant all have the main uses of their spaces.

An indoor track is ideally 200 meters flat. This would be inside of the regulation football field that the space would be expanded to. There is no way that the FBall team will allow a facility that has anything over the playing surface so that they cannot have full movement and passing drills.

Current and new IPF is/will be available to all athletic programs. Multiple times we would have to wait to go in because other programs were using it.

But no on the increase in student fees to fund it. We aren't JMU. We don't need students to fund 70% of our budget.

How much do they fund now?

https://knightnewhousedata.org/fbs/sunb ... he_money-1

Depending on how you calculate it, somewhere between 33-38% and 50-55%. The 55% includes retirement of debt fees and other funding by the university outside of the student fee (Based on quick averages 2018-2020).
Adjusted for inflation the fee dollar amount has gone up 3x adjusted for inflation since 2005.

Also from the chart:
Facilities debt is the highest it has been in record at 6.14 mil (2009 - 4.48 mil adjusted)
Football spending peaked in 2019 at 10.3 mil (A). Around 260% increase from 05.

bcoach wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:49 am

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:24 am

appgrouch wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:16 am

HighlandsApp wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:00 pm

AppinVA wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:53 am

One thing we could do with a new IPF is host indoor track meets. As it is our team practices on the concourse of the HCC.

Well that does make it well worth it. I wonder if an elevated track inside can also be used for the general student and faculty population?

When you look at the North end zone facility that debt service is being paid out of:

1-food services budget
2-bookstore budget
3-general university budget for the ballroom
4-an outside tenant for space in 3rd floor
5-athletic budget

The University could again be creative with parts of paying for the new indoor practice facility out of student recreation fees.

So theft since athletics would not dedicate any guarantied time that anyone besides athletics(FOOTBALL) to use it. The bookstore, Grandview catering and events, and the tenant all have the main uses of their spaces.

An indoor track is ideally 200 meters flat. This would be inside of the regulation football field that the space would be expanded to. There is no way that the FBall team will allow a facility that has anything over the playing surface so that they cannot have full movement and passing drills.

Current and new IPF is/will be available to all athletic programs. Multiple times we would have to wait to go in because other programs were using it.

But no on the increase in student fees to fund it. We aren't JMU. We don't need students to fund 70% of our budget.

How much do they fund now?

Last I saw, student fees were right around 40%. I don't know if it's true any more, but when we first moved up, we got the least in the conference from state/institution funding -- by a significant amount.

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:45 pm

bcoach wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:49 am

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:24 am

appgrouch wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:16 am

HighlandsApp wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:00 pm

Well that does make it well worth it. I wonder if an elevated track inside can also be used for the general student and faculty population?

When you look at the North end zone facility that debt service is being paid out of:

1-food services budget
2-bookstore budget
3-general university budget for the ballroom
4-an outside tenant for space in 3rd floor
5-athletic budget

The University could again be creative with parts of paying for the new indoor practice facility out of student recreation fees.

So theft since athletics would not dedicate any guarantied time that anyone besides athletics(FOOTBALL) to use it. The bookstore, Grandview catering and events, and the tenant all have the main uses of their spaces.

An indoor track is ideally 200 meters flat. This would be inside of the regulation football field that the space would be expanded to. There is no way that the FBall team will allow a facility that has anything over the playing surface so that they cannot have full movement and passing drills.

Current and new IPF is/will be available to all athletic programs. Multiple times we would have to wait to go in because other programs were using it.

But no on the increase in student fees to fund it. We aren't JMU. We don't need students to fund 70% of our budget.

How much do they fund now?

Last I saw, student fees were right around 40%. I don't know if it's true any more, but when we first moved up, we got the least in the conference from state/institution funding -- by a significant amount.

And that's the point. I hope the per seat donation thing helps. Fans, adults, need to step up. We can't (or shouldn't) ask college students to pay for more. And we shouldn't have a list of improvements we want to see and hope some sugar daddy will pay for them. Fans need to do more than appreciate what we have. We need to reach into our own pockets a bit. It is, after all TIGMA. As unpopular as that sentiment may be.

appgrad95&97 wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:06 pm

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:45 pm

bcoach wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:49 am

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:24 am

appgrouch wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:16 am

So theft since athletics would not dedicate any guarantied time that anyone besides athletics(FOOTBALL) to use it. The bookstore, Grandview catering and events, and the tenant all have the main uses of their spaces.

An indoor track is ideally 200 meters flat. This would be inside of the regulation football field that the space would be expanded to. There is no way that the FBall team will allow a facility that has anything over the playing surface so that they cannot have full movement and passing drills.

Current and new IPF is/will be available to all athletic programs. Multiple times we would have to wait to go in because other programs were using it.

But no on the increase in student fees to fund it. We aren't JMU. We don't need students to fund 70% of our budget.

How much do they fund now?

Last I saw, student fees were right around 40%. I don't know if it's true any more, but when we first moved up, we got the least in the conference from state/institution funding -- by a significant amount.

And that's the point. I hope the per seat donation thing helps. Fans, adults, need to step up. We can't (or shouldn't) ask college students to pay for more. And we shouldn't have a list of improvements we want to see and hope some sugar daddy will pay for them. Fans need to do more than appreciate what we have. We need to reach into our own pockets a bit. It is, after all TIGMA. As unpopular as that sentiment may be.

For this specific enhancement, we aren't hoping a sugar daddy pays for it. We have the funds secured. There's no hope. I'm not sure what you're not understanding about that.

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:17 pm

appgrad95&97 wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:06 pm

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:45 pm

bcoach wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:49 am

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:24 am

Current and new IPF is/will be available to all athletic programs. Multiple times we would have to wait to go in because other programs were using it.

But no on the increase in student fees to fund it. We aren't JMU. We don't need students to fund 70% of our budget.

How much do they fund now?

Last I saw, student fees were right around 40%. I don't know if it's true any more, but when we first moved up, we got the least in the conference from state/institution funding -- by a significant amount.

And that's the point. I hope the per seat donation thing helps. Fans, adults, need to step up. We can't (or shouldn't) ask college students to pay for more. And we shouldn't have a list of improvements we want to see and hope some sugar daddy will pay for them. Fans need to do more than appreciate what we have. We need to reach into our own pockets a bit. It is, after all TIGMA. As unpopular as that sentiment may be.

For this specific enhancement, we aren't hoping a sugar daddy pays for it. We have the funds secured. There's no hope. I'm not sure what you're not understanding about that.

Do you know what the East side enhancement is going to cost?

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:45 pm

bcoach wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:49 am

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:24 am

appgrouch wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:16 am

HighlandsApp wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:00 pm

Well that does make it well worth it. I wonder if an elevated track inside can also be used for the general student and faculty population?

When you look at the North end zone facility that debt service is being paid out of:

1-food services budget
2-bookstore budget
3-general university budget for the ballroom
4-an outside tenant for space in 3rd floor
5-athletic budget

The University could again be creative with parts of paying for the new indoor practice facility out of student recreation fees.

So theft since athletics would not dedicate any guarantied time that anyone besides athletics(FOOTBALL) to use it. The bookstore, Grandview catering and events, and the tenant all have the main uses of their spaces.

An indoor track is ideally 200 meters flat. This would be inside of the regulation football field that the space would be expanded to. There is no way that the FBall team will allow a facility that has anything over the playing surface so that they cannot have full movement and passing drills.

Current and new IPF is/will be available to all athletic programs. Multiple times we would have to wait to go in because other programs were using it.

But no on the increase in student fees to fund it. We aren't JMU. We don't need students to fund 70% of our budget.

How much do they fund now?

Last I saw, student fees were right around 40%. I don't know if it's true any more, but when we first moved up, we got the least in the conference from state/institution funding -- by a significant amount.

According to the knight commission, which tracks these sort of things, we are subsidized 41% of ad by student fees and 16% by institutional funds.

This is a good resource to see how we get money and how we spend it- but it’s really hard to make apples to apples comparisons especially for school in different states, which may have different accounting and regulatory practices. FYI the current years reports are for 2021, which is the data from the 2020 year so I expect lots of changes when the 2022 report comes out

For reference in NC the g5 programs

App: 57% subsidized
UNCC 78% subsidized
ECU 52% subsidized

https://knightnewhousedata.org/fbs

So bottom line, has this expansion project ALREADY started and we some months down the road? I am assuming most of this has all been promoted and approved behind the scenes, which I am fine with because I am trusting DG and Co. are put there to make things happen that are in the best interest of the University/Athletic Program.

What I heard on this board is that enough funding has been acquired via corporate, suite fees/commitments, etc and then plan for financing a reasonable balance over time.

Am I to assume then that this project is rolling? Probably after football season you may start to see "physical" evidence via construction etc.?

Last I heard is construction won't start until next year due to where the money is coming from... Take that as you will

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 12:58 pm

Last I heard is construction won't start until next year due to where the money is coming from... Take that as you will

Does next year mean calendar or fiscal?

AppSt94 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:00 pm

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 12:58 pm

Last I heard is construction won't start until next year due to where the money is coming from... Take that as you will

Does next year mean calendar or fiscal?

Not entirely sure. My guess is fiscal but not 100% certain on that.

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:02 pm

AppSt94 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:00 pm

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 12:58 pm

Last I heard is construction won't start until next year due to where the money is coming from... Take that as you will

Does next year mean calendar or fiscal?

Not entirely sure. My guess is fiscal but not 100% certain on that.

I would assume fiscal as well.

AppSt94 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:03 pm

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:02 pm

AppSt94 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:00 pm

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 12:58 pm

Last I heard is construction won't start until next year due to where the money is coming from... Take that as you will

Does next year mean calendar or fiscal?

Not entirely sure. My guess is fiscal but not 100% certain on that.

I would assume fiscal as well.

That’s in July?

BeauFoster wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:48 pm

AppSt94 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:03 pm

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:02 pm

AppSt94 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:00 pm

AppStateNews wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 12:58 pm

Last I heard is construction won't start until next year due to where the money is coming from... Take that as you will

Does next year mean calendar or fiscal?

Not entirely sure. My guess is fiscal but not 100% certain on that.

I would assume fiscal as well.

That’s in July?

Correct.