Community Comments
When Tony Frank first announced his plan to abandon Hughes Stadium and spend hundreds of millions cramming a new stadium of the same capacity on campus, residents were absolutely incredulous at the arrogance of CSU. Over the years, the feelings of anger, frustration, and betrayal have only grown!
Poll #1 | Poll #2 | Soapbox | Letter to the Editor | Public Comments
Poll #1 | Poll #2 | Soapbox | Letter to the Editor | Public Comments
The First Poll
In July 2014, SOSH paid for a unbiased, scientific poll of registered Ft Collins voters.
Triton Polling and Research asked one question:
"What do you think of the proposal to build a new football stadium on CSU’s main campus?"
59.9% of the 1,099 respondents moderately or strongly disapproved.
In July 2014, SOSH paid for a unbiased, scientific poll of registered Ft Collins voters.
Triton Polling and Research asked one question:
"What do you think of the proposal to build a new football stadium on CSU’s main campus?"
59.9% of the 1,099 respondents moderately or strongly disapproved.
The Second Poll
Fort Collins newspaper, the Coloradoan (A Gannett property), conducted a poll of readers in July 2014
Fort Collins newspaper, the Coloradoan (A Gannett property), conducted a poll of readers in July 2014
Coloradoan survey shows 59.12% respondents opposed to the new stadium
So what do people REALLY think of the on-campus stadium?
Here are just a few of the thousands of adverse comments made by students, faculty and city residents about the on-campus stadium. These are the words of real people who are fed up with being dictated and lied to and told that "it's a done deal" ... no matter what!
Note: Where requested, the names been removed to protect the innocent.
Here are just a few of the thousands of adverse comments made by students, faculty and city residents about the on-campus stadium. These are the words of real people who are fed up with being dictated and lied to and told that "it's a done deal" ... no matter what!
Note: Where requested, the names been removed to protect the innocent.
Over 17 acres granted to CSU for academics now diverted to a football stadium and the athletic department. Horrific waste. Rising tuition, excessive student debt and deficit spending on football. Tony Frank is more interested in football on campus than students. Look how far away the student housing is being built.
Governor Hickenlooper has said nothing about backing the stadium - the Coloradoan looks for every opportunity to imply support for the stadium and be Tony Franks lapdog. Just like the recent article saying the committee supported taking money out of the general fund for the stadium when a) it wasn't a committee, it was an "urgent" assemblage of people called to the presentation by Tony Frank for appearances sake and b) they didn't vote nor support it and in fact many there were against the stadium. Agreed that Tony is a shrewd manipulator.
Regarding student debt - again this article and Tony's statements are disingenuous. Students graduating from CSU with a bachelors in 2013 - 54% or 2,557 students had an average debt of $23,726 (and those are ones who graduated, what about those who drop out due to debt?). Cost of attendance in 2012-2013 total cost of attendance $22,285, in-state tuition $8,649 ($9897 for 2014-2015 and set to rise yet again by 5.5% next year). And they get to pay for the expansion of the football program, tony's goal of a top 20 football team despite the massive deficit spending into perpetuity and pay for the new stadium when the inflated revenue predictions fail to appear.
Student debt: http://ticas.org/posd/map-state-data…
Governor Hickenlooper has said nothing about backing the stadium - the Coloradoan looks for every opportunity to imply support for the stadium and be Tony Franks lapdog. Just like the recent article saying the committee supported taking money out of the general fund for the stadium when a) it wasn't a committee, it was an "urgent" assemblage of people called to the presentation by Tony Frank for appearances sake and b) they didn't vote nor support it and in fact many there were against the stadium. Agreed that Tony is a shrewd manipulator.
Regarding student debt - again this article and Tony's statements are disingenuous. Students graduating from CSU with a bachelors in 2013 - 54% or 2,557 students had an average debt of $23,726 (and those are ones who graduated, what about those who drop out due to debt?). Cost of attendance in 2012-2013 total cost of attendance $22,285, in-state tuition $8,649 ($9897 for 2014-2015 and set to rise yet again by 5.5% next year). And they get to pay for the expansion of the football program, tony's goal of a top 20 football team despite the massive deficit spending into perpetuity and pay for the new stadium when the inflated revenue predictions fail to appear.
Student debt: http://ticas.org/posd/map-state-data…
A soapbox in the Coloradoan written by Bob V on the IGA agreement and the deficit spending on football was taken down minutes after it was put up. The Coloradoan has stopped printing anti-stadium or letters critical of the CSU administration, save one that they had obviously delayed and used to appear to balance the "the $220 million cost of construction is guaranteed unless the scope of the project changes" article by stadium hawk Kelly Lyell (when have we heard these type of assurances on the boondoggle new football stadium before? and sure we believe you, CSU).
This has ceased to be a community paper of any intelligence or responsibility to the people of Northern Colorado and is merely a pawn of CSU, the Chamber and the real estate agent promoting growth growth growth and lack of construction oversight and responsibility who apparently controls the editorial board. If you care about freedom of the press and responsibility to the truth and to our community, you can email executive editor Lauren Gustus [email protected]
This has ceased to be a community paper of any intelligence or responsibility to the people of Northern Colorado and is merely a pawn of CSU, the Chamber and the real estate agent promoting growth growth growth and lack of construction oversight and responsibility who apparently controls the editorial board. If you care about freedom of the press and responsibility to the truth and to our community, you can email executive editor Lauren Gustus [email protected]
So - they have already changed the scope of the project! asking for an additional $18 million and at the last minute too - which Tony claims to just hate to do. Sure, Tony. And Joe Parker and Dorothy Horrell lecturing us about the stadium and our town - where they do not live. Joe had his new AD job just days and when asked if FC was a football town in a radio interview, he said "Absolutely"! Absolutely not is the right answer. He clearly does not know or respect our town or campus. Now he is lecturing us about how towns in Tx, Ok and Mi had to accept a new stadium and we will too and just love it. In his complete arrogance, he is trivializing the opposition, the negative impacts of the new stadium and the exorbitant costs and all for football paid for by education.
More word play from Tony (3 years of this) -- feel to add to the Tonyisnotfrank-isms:
- They will keep it at $220 million "unless they change the scope of the project".
- Athletic donors will pay 100%
- Students "shouldn't" have to pay for it
- They MUST fund raise half/ $125 million (really $60 million). Instead they borrowed 100%,(including some for bond payments when revenues fall short) and donors can instead buy bonds with a return guaranteed by tuition
- If they don't raise the money, fundraising will be suspended and he will invest into Hughes for football
- If they invest in Hughes the money HAS to come from the general fund and those poor poor students
- 4 options that were actually two - the new stadium or the new stadium
- Tuition is rising fast because of inflationary pressure
- Build the stadium based on the dishonest feasibility report produced by the builder wildly inflating revenues and refusing outside, objective scrutiny by economists.
- He squashed the "insurgency" of the faculty council
- They will keep it at $220 million "unless they change the scope of the project".
- Athletic donors will pay 100%
- Students "shouldn't" have to pay for it
- They MUST fund raise half/ $125 million (really $60 million). Instead they borrowed 100%,(including some for bond payments when revenues fall short) and donors can instead buy bonds with a return guaranteed by tuition
- If they don't raise the money, fundraising will be suspended and he will invest into Hughes for football
- If they invest in Hughes the money HAS to come from the general fund and those poor poor students
- 4 options that were actually two - the new stadium or the new stadium
- Tuition is rising fast because of inflationary pressure
- Build the stadium based on the dishonest feasibility report produced by the builder wildly inflating revenues and refusing outside, objective scrutiny by economists.
- He squashed the "insurgency" of the faculty council
We just got an email that one of the top stories on Bloomberg terminals last week was "Football Stadium Arms Race Pushes Colorado School to Double Debt" . The person wrote "Steve - your quote was great - needless to say (xxx) won't be buying these bonds for our client portfolios"
Also - think about parents with young children and the fact that the future tuition payments are to pay for this debt. Not to mention the current students who are going into debt for their college degree and paying for football for entertainment of those outside the university community.
Also - think about parents with young children and the fact that the future tuition payments are to pay for this debt. Not to mention the current students who are going into debt for their college degree and paying for football for entertainment of those outside the university community.
1 in 10 Colorado State University students experience food hunger, Students debt is rising with 58% graduating with ~ 23k in debt currently - and those are just the ones that graduate, Tuition has risen 69% in the 5 years since Tony Frank has been President. Far outpacing inflation.
Now he has increased CSU's debt by 1/4 in order to build a new football stadium on campus and deficit spends 25 million per year on the football team. He is siphons off money from tuition and student fees and is depending on increasing tuition costs, future students and increasing student numbers to pay for it all. (Beware parents with young children who hope to send their child to CSU)
All while not investing in education (just buildings), and by reducing how much they spend to educate students, relying on poverty wage adjuncts to teach, which means quality of education declines and class sizes are getting bigger and all at higher prices for the students.
Now he is asking for donations to help hungry students. What is wrong with this picture?
Now he has increased CSU's debt by 1/4 in order to build a new football stadium on campus and deficit spends 25 million per year on the football team. He is siphons off money from tuition and student fees and is depending on increasing tuition costs, future students and increasing student numbers to pay for it all. (Beware parents with young children who hope to send their child to CSU)
All while not investing in education (just buildings), and by reducing how much they spend to educate students, relying on poverty wage adjuncts to teach, which means quality of education declines and class sizes are getting bigger and all at higher prices for the students.
Now he is asking for donations to help hungry students. What is wrong with this picture?
We recently received a form letter from the Colorado State University Foundation. Curious if this was some ruse to get donations for the forthcoming CSU Colosseum, I read it.
The lead line was, “One in 10 Colorado State University students experiences food insecurity.” The Rams Against Hunger program is striving to combat this problem. Suggested donations starting at $32.50 could feed a student for a week. The letter indicated 2,800 students are undernourished — about one in 10. The images were of typical college students, not looking so malnourished as a plea from Unicef or Care. All teachers recognize that students achieve more when adequately fed so the concern is genuine.
Reflecting on student hunger, I wondered how the millions spent so far on the new Frank field, with overwhelming public disapproval, could have eliminated undergraduate hunger for scores of years. I would think that the sizable and ever-increasing tuition and sundry fees, properly allocated, could do so much for these hungry students. The football program subsidization alone, which some dream could become Colo-bama State University’s equivalent of the Crimson Tide, could generate three nutritious meals a day per student.
I believe the Rams Against Hunger organizers might consider picketing outside President Tony Frank’s office building to let him know of this dire need and encourage some re-prioritization. Perhaps, surrounded by his inner coterie of financiers and builders and so consumed with team recruitment efforts, he is unaware and would value this enlightenment.
The lead line was, “One in 10 Colorado State University students experiences food insecurity.” The Rams Against Hunger program is striving to combat this problem. Suggested donations starting at $32.50 could feed a student for a week. The letter indicated 2,800 students are undernourished — about one in 10. The images were of typical college students, not looking so malnourished as a plea from Unicef or Care. All teachers recognize that students achieve more when adequately fed so the concern is genuine.
Reflecting on student hunger, I wondered how the millions spent so far on the new Frank field, with overwhelming public disapproval, could have eliminated undergraduate hunger for scores of years. I would think that the sizable and ever-increasing tuition and sundry fees, properly allocated, could do so much for these hungry students. The football program subsidization alone, which some dream could become Colo-bama State University’s equivalent of the Crimson Tide, could generate three nutritious meals a day per student.
I believe the Rams Against Hunger organizers might consider picketing outside President Tony Frank’s office building to let him know of this dire need and encourage some re-prioritization. Perhaps, surrounded by his inner coterie of financiers and builders and so consumed with team recruitment efforts, he is unaware and would value this enlightenment.
So - they have already changed the scope of the project! asking for an additional $18 million and at the last minute too - which Tony claims to just hate to do. Sure, Tony. And Joe Parker and Dorothy Horrell lecturing us about the stadium and our town - where they do not live. Joe had his new AD job just days and when asked if FC was a football town in a radio interview, he said "Absolutely"! Absolutely not is the right answer. He clearly does not know or respect our town or campus. Now he is lecturing us about how towns in Tx, Ok and Mi had to accept a new stadium and we will too and just love it. In his complete arrogance, he is trivializing the opposition, the negative impacts of the new stadium and the exorbitant costs and all for football paid for by education.
Also - think about parents with young children and the fact that the future tuition payments are to pay for this debt. Not to mention the current students who are going into debt for their college degree and paying for football for entertainment of those outside the university community.
Also - think about parents with young children and the fact that the future tuition payments are to pay for this debt. Not to mention the current students who are going into debt for their college degree and paying for football for entertainment of those outside the university community.
Agree! Students and Education first - the stadium is nothing more than a land grab in the best traditions of manifest destiny, corporate greed and serves only to make a few wealthy at the expense of the many. Sad that nothing ever changes...
Tony Frank took over as CSU president in 2008. From then until 2013, undergraduate in-state tuition grew from $4,424 to $7,494. That is a total increase of 69 percent in just five years, or an average annual increase of 11 percent.
Over the same period, consumer prices rose by fewer than 2 percent per year. The university’s claim that CSU is educating students for “roughly the same cost” after factoring in inflation is completely false.
Tuition has also risen far beyond the amount needed to offset cuts in state support. From 2008 to 2012, tuition revenue rose by $80.4 million while state support fell by $24.7 million. That explains how CSU can afford the construction boom that is now underway, including spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a new football stadium that almost no one aside from Tony Frank wants.
Nor is it true that the university has to raise tuition in order to spend more on education, as the CSU provost claims. CSU has been cutting spending on education by relying on cheap adjunct faculty. By 2013, these faculty members taught almost two-thirds of all undergraduate student credit hours. So tuition has been rising even as the cost of instruction has been falling.
CSU could have maintained or improved its quality of education with much lower tuition increases. The problem is its priorities, not forces beyond its control, such as inflation or the state’s budget.
Over the same period, consumer prices rose by fewer than 2 percent per year. The university’s claim that CSU is educating students for “roughly the same cost” after factoring in inflation is completely false.
Tuition has also risen far beyond the amount needed to offset cuts in state support. From 2008 to 2012, tuition revenue rose by $80.4 million while state support fell by $24.7 million. That explains how CSU can afford the construction boom that is now underway, including spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a new football stadium that almost no one aside from Tony Frank wants.
Nor is it true that the university has to raise tuition in order to spend more on education, as the CSU provost claims. CSU has been cutting spending on education by relying on cheap adjunct faculty. By 2013, these faculty members taught almost two-thirds of all undergraduate student credit hours. So tuition has been rising even as the cost of instruction has been falling.
CSU could have maintained or improved its quality of education with much lower tuition increases. The problem is its priorities, not forces beyond its control, such as inflation or the state’s budget.
New Element Discovered!
The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by a team from Colorado State University. The element, tentatively called Administratium, has no protons or electrons, and thus has an atomic number of zero. The new element is also found to have only one neutron. However, it also has 15 vice neutrons, 70 associate vice neutrons and 161 assistant vice neutrons. This gives it an atomic weight of 247.
Since it has no electrons, Administratium is chemically inert. However, it can still be detected by non-chemical means. This is because Administratium impedes every reaction that it comes in contact with. According to the CSU team, a minute amount of Administratium added to one normally fast-acting reaction caused it to take over four days to complete. Without the Administratium, the reaction occurs in less than one second!
Administratium has a normal half life of approximately two years, at which time it does not actually decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which the assistant neutrons, vice neutrons and assistant vice neutrons exchange places. Some studies indicate that the atomic weight actually increases after each reorganization.
Research indicates that Administratium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate in locations such as government agencies, large corporations and certain nonprofit organizations. It is especially prevalent in large state-funded research universities. In such universities, Administratium can usually be found in the newest, best-appointed and best-maintained buildings.
The discoverers warn that Administratium is known to be toxic. Symptoms of infection include lethargy, listlessness and the avoidance of meaningful work. Doctors recommend plenty of fluids and bed rest after even low levels of exposure.
The CSU team, known as CSU-FAAS, or CSU Faculty Against Administrative Subterfuge, also reports one especially potent Administratium isotope, labeled as BOG-TF. A small amount of BOG-TF planted anywhere on campus, no matter how small or inappropriate the area, will cause little football stadiums to sprout up spontaneously, but only if sprinkled with a liberal amount of borrowed (not private) money.
The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by a team from Colorado State University. The element, tentatively called Administratium, has no protons or electrons, and thus has an atomic number of zero. The new element is also found to have only one neutron. However, it also has 15 vice neutrons, 70 associate vice neutrons and 161 assistant vice neutrons. This gives it an atomic weight of 247.
Since it has no electrons, Administratium is chemically inert. However, it can still be detected by non-chemical means. This is because Administratium impedes every reaction that it comes in contact with. According to the CSU team, a minute amount of Administratium added to one normally fast-acting reaction caused it to take over four days to complete. Without the Administratium, the reaction occurs in less than one second!
Administratium has a normal half life of approximately two years, at which time it does not actually decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which the assistant neutrons, vice neutrons and assistant vice neutrons exchange places. Some studies indicate that the atomic weight actually increases after each reorganization.
Research indicates that Administratium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate in locations such as government agencies, large corporations and certain nonprofit organizations. It is especially prevalent in large state-funded research universities. In such universities, Administratium can usually be found in the newest, best-appointed and best-maintained buildings.
The discoverers warn that Administratium is known to be toxic. Symptoms of infection include lethargy, listlessness and the avoidance of meaningful work. Doctors recommend plenty of fluids and bed rest after even low levels of exposure.
The CSU team, known as CSU-FAAS, or CSU Faculty Against Administrative Subterfuge, also reports one especially potent Administratium isotope, labeled as BOG-TF. A small amount of BOG-TF planted anywhere on campus, no matter how small or inappropriate the area, will cause little football stadiums to sprout up spontaneously, but only if sprinkled with a liberal amount of borrowed (not private) money.
Hey -- we made the top 10 again! This time the most un-creditworthy universities at #5 - just behind Boise State who also spends extravagantly on football instead of education.https://smartasset.com/.../are-you-attending-a-university...
Tyler Shannon's CSU ghostwriter says that " Every group necessary has supported it resoundingly." That speaks volumes. That has been the focus. Skillfully maneuver so a highly unpopular stadium happens and excessive borrowing and spending by a public institution of higher education in a TABOR state can bypass any democratic or local rule and regulations and fiscal responsibility that a private developer would face. Funny how the conservatives in the state legislature and on the BOG look the other way when reducing public debt and spending are supposed to be their cause. And all for a football stadium (and football)
Rich Schweigert, Colorado State University’s chief financial officer, recently warned that Standard & Poor’s may downgrade CSU bonds because of the financial risks of its new football stadium.
This remarkable announcement has been brushed aside by Schweigert and CSU President Tony Frank. Nonetheless, it clearly shows that the financial projections for the new stadium are shaky at best.
Contrary to his promises, Frank plans to borrow the entire $242 million needed to build the new stadium and start paying down the bonds. That will increase CSU’s total debt to the point where Standard & Poor’s could lower its credit rating.
After all, college football programs around the country overwhelmingly lose money. Attendance at the games has been falling. Frank has never explained why CSU will be an exception to these national trends.
The new football stadium will need to generate $12 million every year above what Hughes Stadium generates just to make its bond payments. It also will need to generate the additional revenues needed to pay for a dramatically expanded football program, including the extravagant salary paid to the new coach.
This remarkable announcement has been brushed aside by Schweigert and CSU President Tony Frank. Nonetheless, it clearly shows that the financial projections for the new stadium are shaky at best.
Contrary to his promises, Frank plans to borrow the entire $242 million needed to build the new stadium and start paying down the bonds. That will increase CSU’s total debt to the point where Standard & Poor’s could lower its credit rating.
After all, college football programs around the country overwhelmingly lose money. Attendance at the games has been falling. Frank has never explained why CSU will be an exception to these national trends.
The new football stadium will need to generate $12 million every year above what Hughes Stadium generates just to make its bond payments. It also will need to generate the additional revenues needed to pay for a dramatically expanded football program, including the extravagant salary paid to the new coach.
Email From Carl Patton, professor emeritus of physics at CSU. Normally a quiet person focused on his research now turned into tiger over this stadium. (Apparently Dr Frank was bragging about "squashing" an "insurrection" at faculty council ) Read on......
"I heard that some anti-stadium folk attempted to be a presence at the Faculty Council (FC) meeting on Tuesday afternoon. I know no details except that the President of Faculty Council advised one of them that (paraphrasing) "only a small fraction of the faculty are against the stadium. That statement, if correct, seems to me to be incredulous. I have attended many FC meetings over the past two years I was a member. Whenever the occasion presented itself, FC member after FC member stood up and stated quite clearly that "I am opposed to this stadium." or "almost all of the faculty in my department are against the stadium," etc. When Louis made his presentation a year or so ago, many were aghast. Even our FC rep to the BOG spoke out against it (and later did so eloquently at the BOG meeting than handed Tony his Christmas present of 300 mil in debt for CSU), and I think she also stated that she did not know any faculty (or maybe very few) that supported the stadium.
I have no idea what is going on here, but we all (as well as the faculty) are clearly playing against a stacked deck.
If you know any CSU faculty members, contact them, copy my letter to the Collegian to them, or tell them in your own words, to stand up and be counted. Tell them to e-mail the FC President, to e-mail Tony Frank, to e-mail the BOG, to send letters to the Coloradoan and the Collegian. The only tool we seem to have is inundation. It will take a (very large) village to kill Tony Franks stadium."
"I heard that some anti-stadium folk attempted to be a presence at the Faculty Council (FC) meeting on Tuesday afternoon. I know no details except that the President of Faculty Council advised one of them that (paraphrasing) "only a small fraction of the faculty are against the stadium. That statement, if correct, seems to me to be incredulous. I have attended many FC meetings over the past two years I was a member. Whenever the occasion presented itself, FC member after FC member stood up and stated quite clearly that "I am opposed to this stadium." or "almost all of the faculty in my department are against the stadium," etc. When Louis made his presentation a year or so ago, many were aghast. Even our FC rep to the BOG spoke out against it (and later did so eloquently at the BOG meeting than handed Tony his Christmas present of 300 mil in debt for CSU), and I think she also stated that she did not know any faculty (or maybe very few) that supported the stadium.
I have no idea what is going on here, but we all (as well as the faculty) are clearly playing against a stacked deck.
If you know any CSU faculty members, contact them, copy my letter to the Collegian to them, or tell them in your own words, to stand up and be counted. Tell them to e-mail the FC President, to e-mail Tony Frank, to e-mail the BOG, to send letters to the Coloradoan and the Collegian. The only tool we seem to have is inundation. It will take a (very large) village to kill Tony Franks stadium."
Why is Frank so confident that the new stadium will clear these financial hurdles? The only evidence he ever has provided is the feasibility report by ICON Ventures, a stadium consulting and construction company. The Icon report concludes that the stadium project is financially feasible. But Icon has a significant stake in that conclusion since it stands to make millions of dollars from overseeing the construction of the new stadium.
That is a blatant conflict of interest that calls into question the objectivity of the ICON report. At the very least, it creates an appearance that the process has been rigged to get to a preordained conclusion.
The biases in the ICON report are not subtle. For example, it ignores the negative national trends in college football finances and attendance that raise the risk of financial failure.
It projects a permanent 22 percent increase in attendance, compared with attendance at Hughes Stadium, based on a survey of Rams fans who said they would be more likely to attend games in a new stadium.
But that hopeful assumption does not take into account the increased cost of attending games at the new stadium because of higher ticket prices, parking charges and even a proposed fee for tailgating.
As these costs go up, demand for football tickets will go down, particularly since there is no reason to believe that personal incomes will rise as quickly as the cost of attending football games.
Nor does the ICON report acknowledge that ticket sales at the new stadium should fall over time as the stadium ages. After all, if Rams fans don’t want to attend games at Hughes because it is old, why will they want to attend games at the new stadium when it is old?
For a variety of reasons like these, the Icon report cannot be taken seriously. Yet Frank has no other evidence that would justify this amount of borrowing and spending.
Frank now faces widespread anger and cynicism. He says the stadium will pull our community together, when in fact it has torn it apart.
The new stadium may be a done deal, but the debate about it will go on. It is a necessary debate because the new stadium embodies so much that has gone wrong with higher education, including excessive cost, bloat and mismanagement, a lack of focus on its core educational mission and a loss of public trust.
That will be Frank’s legacy to our community, written in steel and stone.
That is a blatant conflict of interest that calls into question the objectivity of the ICON report. At the very least, it creates an appearance that the process has been rigged to get to a preordained conclusion.
The biases in the ICON report are not subtle. For example, it ignores the negative national trends in college football finances and attendance that raise the risk of financial failure.
It projects a permanent 22 percent increase in attendance, compared with attendance at Hughes Stadium, based on a survey of Rams fans who said they would be more likely to attend games in a new stadium.
But that hopeful assumption does not take into account the increased cost of attending games at the new stadium because of higher ticket prices, parking charges and even a proposed fee for tailgating.
As these costs go up, demand for football tickets will go down, particularly since there is no reason to believe that personal incomes will rise as quickly as the cost of attending football games.
Nor does the ICON report acknowledge that ticket sales at the new stadium should fall over time as the stadium ages. After all, if Rams fans don’t want to attend games at Hughes because it is old, why will they want to attend games at the new stadium when it is old?
For a variety of reasons like these, the Icon report cannot be taken seriously. Yet Frank has no other evidence that would justify this amount of borrowing and spending.
Frank now faces widespread anger and cynicism. He says the stadium will pull our community together, when in fact it has torn it apart.
The new stadium may be a done deal, but the debate about it will go on. It is a necessary debate because the new stadium embodies so much that has gone wrong with higher education, including excessive cost, bloat and mismanagement, a lack of focus on its core educational mission and a loss of public trust.
That will be Frank’s legacy to our community, written in steel and stone.
According to CSU Chief Financial Officer Rich Schweigert, Standard & Poors has warned it may downgrade CSU bonds due to the increased debt required to build the new football stadium.
Mr. Schweigert and CSU President Tony Frank have brushed off this remarkable warning, but it clearly shows the new stadium will create a significant financial risk that ultimately will be borne by CSU students.
Only a handful of college football programs earn enough to cover their costs. The remainder have to be subsidized by students, either by higher tuition and fees, or by cuts in academic programs.
The new stadium must earn $12 million more than Hughes every year for the next 30 years just to make the annual bond payments. Then it will have to earn millions more to pay for the dramatic expansion of the football program.
President Frank's faith that the new stadium will generate sufficient revenue is based on nothing more than a consulting report tainted by conflict of interest. The same company that produced the report stands to make millions of dollars from overseeing the construction of the stadium.
Despite S&P's warning, Mr. Schweigert says that the university could not have timed this project better given that interest rates are at historic lows.
This odd statement invites a comparison to the 2008 financial collapse. That catastrophe was caused by speculation fueled by cheap money and false promises of low risk and high returns.
Just like the new football stadium.
Mr. Schweigert and CSU President Tony Frank have brushed off this remarkable warning, but it clearly shows the new stadium will create a significant financial risk that ultimately will be borne by CSU students.
Only a handful of college football programs earn enough to cover their costs. The remainder have to be subsidized by students, either by higher tuition and fees, or by cuts in academic programs.
The new stadium must earn $12 million more than Hughes every year for the next 30 years just to make the annual bond payments. Then it will have to earn millions more to pay for the dramatic expansion of the football program.
President Frank's faith that the new stadium will generate sufficient revenue is based on nothing more than a consulting report tainted by conflict of interest. The same company that produced the report stands to make millions of dollars from overseeing the construction of the stadium.
Despite S&P's warning, Mr. Schweigert says that the university could not have timed this project better given that interest rates are at historic lows.
This odd statement invites a comparison to the 2008 financial collapse. That catastrophe was caused by speculation fueled by cheap money and false promises of low risk and high returns.
Just like the new football stadium.
A debate over a proposed stadium at Colorado State University makes literal the issue of how, and how deeply, athletics should fit into today’s colleges. Colorado State’s Board of Governors this month approved the sale of $242-million in bonds to build a 36,000-seat football stadium in the heart of the Fort Collins campus to replace the existing Hughes Stadium at the edge of the university.
That forward motion comes despite widespread attempts to block the project. An opposition group, Save Our Stadium Hughes, has brought in experts in sports economics to evaluate and discuss the university’s plan. All have raised concerns, particularly about financial viability. With average tuition costs and student debt continuing to climb, critics of athletics spending want to know why colleges continue to gamble on big sports venues.
For most colleges, attendance at games is falling. A CBS Sports analysis said the average attendance at college football games in 2014 fell to its lowest level in 14 years. Average attendance at Colorado State football games has dropped from 23,643 in 2009 to 18,600 in 2013.
Steven Shulman, chair of the economics department at Colorado State, said he can’t understand why anyone would think his institution would be the exception to the rule. "Football is not the future," he said. "College football is really a relic of the past."
Colorado State’s top leaders, however, view an on-campus stadium as more than just a way to elevate the football program and bring in money through ticket sales. They see it as an opportunity to engage alumni. Too many alums make it to the football stadium but not onto the actual campus on game days, said Mike Hooker, the university’s spokesman. This way, he said, they might take in a lecture or visit an art gallery while they’re there.
"This is about making those game days, when you’ve got thousands of people here to cheer for CSU, making those game days about more than football," Mr. Hooker said. He emphasized that the stadium would complement, not counter, the university’s academic mission.
‘Landmark Gathering Place’
The public got its first glimpse of Colorado State’s stadium proposal three years ago, when Jack Graham, the athletic director at the time, gave a presentation highlighting five primary reasons for the on-campus facility: developing game-day traditions, attracting quality coaches and athletes, increasing the college’s exposure, having a positive economic impact on the Fort Collins community, and creating a "landmark gathering place" that could be used for other events besides football, like graduation ceremonies.
In a September 2014 recommendation on the stadium, President Anthony A. Frank emphasized the marketing value of a modern stadium. "Athletics help drive visibility," he wrote. "Whatever one thinks of the popularity of sports in American culture, factually, sports are highly visible. For an institution of great academic quality in a wonderful location priced to be an exceptional educational value, visibility is a key element in our success."
Hughes Stadium opened in 1968 and needs $30-million in "necessary maintenance," Mr. Hooker said. Making the kinds of improvements that would increase revenue could cost up to $150-million, he said, so it makes more sense to start from scratch.
After the stadium proposal was announced, opposition arose swiftly, both on the campus and in Fort Collins. Save Our Stadium Hughes has invited scrutiny by experts like Joel G. Maxcy, an associate professor of sport management at Drexel University who evaluated the plans for the new facility in 2012. Under only the most optimistic of circumstances would that stadium pay for itself, he said.
But Mr. Hooker said the university was confident in an analysis by ICON Venue Group, which indicates financial success for the stadium.
‘Education, Not Entertainment’
To critics of the plan, money is not the only reason to oppose it. Building a new stadium would push Colorado State in a direction that many people there don’t want to go. "This is a university," said Mr. Shulman, the economics chair. "Our primary mission is education, not entertainment."
Andrew Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College, expressed concern that the project would send a "strange message" about the university’s priorities.
Bringing the stadium to the heart of the campus, he said, would make football a central focus—literally—of the university.
Colorado State has never insisted on participating in the athletics "arms race," said B. David Ridpath, an alum who is now a professor of sport management at Ohio University. "I don’t want this to be a case of I told you so," he said. "But I’m afraid it’s very much going to be that."
How is the deficit spending on football justified by an institute of higher education? How does subsidized big time sports promote education or research? Why these howls from pro stadium people who feel entitled to being entertained and whose comments here were unrelated to the soapbox? Why do donors think they are the ones paying for professors when it is the professors who are the lifeblood and generating the bulk of the revenue? How can these donors expect CSU to spend considerably more than what they give so they can have their entertainment (athletics is more than football) subsidized by education. And Linda, professors donate and set up scholarships too except they are doing it for the purity of altruism.
That forward motion comes despite widespread attempts to block the project. An opposition group, Save Our Stadium Hughes, has brought in experts in sports economics to evaluate and discuss the university’s plan. All have raised concerns, particularly about financial viability. With average tuition costs and student debt continuing to climb, critics of athletics spending want to know why colleges continue to gamble on big sports venues.
For most colleges, attendance at games is falling. A CBS Sports analysis said the average attendance at college football games in 2014 fell to its lowest level in 14 years. Average attendance at Colorado State football games has dropped from 23,643 in 2009 to 18,600 in 2013.
Steven Shulman, chair of the economics department at Colorado State, said he can’t understand why anyone would think his institution would be the exception to the rule. "Football is not the future," he said. "College football is really a relic of the past."
Colorado State’s top leaders, however, view an on-campus stadium as more than just a way to elevate the football program and bring in money through ticket sales. They see it as an opportunity to engage alumni. Too many alums make it to the football stadium but not onto the actual campus on game days, said Mike Hooker, the university’s spokesman. This way, he said, they might take in a lecture or visit an art gallery while they’re there.
"This is about making those game days, when you’ve got thousands of people here to cheer for CSU, making those game days about more than football," Mr. Hooker said. He emphasized that the stadium would complement, not counter, the university’s academic mission.
‘Landmark Gathering Place’
The public got its first glimpse of Colorado State’s stadium proposal three years ago, when Jack Graham, the athletic director at the time, gave a presentation highlighting five primary reasons for the on-campus facility: developing game-day traditions, attracting quality coaches and athletes, increasing the college’s exposure, having a positive economic impact on the Fort Collins community, and creating a "landmark gathering place" that could be used for other events besides football, like graduation ceremonies.
In a September 2014 recommendation on the stadium, President Anthony A. Frank emphasized the marketing value of a modern stadium. "Athletics help drive visibility," he wrote. "Whatever one thinks of the popularity of sports in American culture, factually, sports are highly visible. For an institution of great academic quality in a wonderful location priced to be an exceptional educational value, visibility is a key element in our success."
Hughes Stadium opened in 1968 and needs $30-million in "necessary maintenance," Mr. Hooker said. Making the kinds of improvements that would increase revenue could cost up to $150-million, he said, so it makes more sense to start from scratch.
After the stadium proposal was announced, opposition arose swiftly, both on the campus and in Fort Collins. Save Our Stadium Hughes has invited scrutiny by experts like Joel G. Maxcy, an associate professor of sport management at Drexel University who evaluated the plans for the new facility in 2012. Under only the most optimistic of circumstances would that stadium pay for itself, he said.
But Mr. Hooker said the university was confident in an analysis by ICON Venue Group, which indicates financial success for the stadium.
‘Education, Not Entertainment’
To critics of the plan, money is not the only reason to oppose it. Building a new stadium would push Colorado State in a direction that many people there don’t want to go. "This is a university," said Mr. Shulman, the economics chair. "Our primary mission is education, not entertainment."
Andrew Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College, expressed concern that the project would send a "strange message" about the university’s priorities.
Bringing the stadium to the heart of the campus, he said, would make football a central focus—literally—of the university.
Colorado State has never insisted on participating in the athletics "arms race," said B. David Ridpath, an alum who is now a professor of sport management at Ohio University. "I don’t want this to be a case of I told you so," he said. "But I’m afraid it’s very much going to be that."
How is the deficit spending on football justified by an institute of higher education? How does subsidized big time sports promote education or research? Why these howls from pro stadium people who feel entitled to being entertained and whose comments here were unrelated to the soapbox? Why do donors think they are the ones paying for professors when it is the professors who are the lifeblood and generating the bulk of the revenue? How can these donors expect CSU to spend considerably more than what they give so they can have their entertainment (athletics is more than football) subsidized by education. And Linda, professors donate and set up scholarships too except they are doing it for the purity of altruism.
Consider CSU’s past athletic director, Paul Kowalczyk. When asked, ”Who is the customer for the CSU athletic department?” he emphatically answered: “The student athlete.”Now consider today’s CSU athletic department. It appears that its customer is everyone except the student athlete — the coaches, the staff and the department itself. Worse, the department hides behind “private money” funding, rather than being open and transparent about its operation.
Let’s examine some recent facts that support this accusation, found in CSU documents obtained by Colorado open records requests:
• CSU paid more than $324,000, via the CSU Research Foundation, for the new athletic director to hire a million-dollar football coach. The expense portion of this check was more than $74,000, of which $69,190 was for charter flights — most likely for the new AD’s travel.
We are told not to worry because it was paid for by private funds.
• Shortly thereafter, the new, million-dollar basketball coach was hired. This time to the tune of more than $159,000. Of this amount, $84,281 was expenses, where $71,772 was for charter flights in a luxury corporate jet. Seems like everyone except the CSU AD flew commercial. They then spent $1,085 in Longmont for a “celebration supper.”
We should not be concerned because it was all private funds.
• CSU is currently paying the above-mentioned Kowalczyk more than $120,000 a year on his contract buy-out.
Not to worry, it’s all private funds.
• The basketball team went on a four-day excursion to the Bahamas to the tune of more than $50,000. CSU paid for 28 people to travel: nine basketball players plus 19 others. Wow! Do we need 19 “hangers on” to play one game in four days?
Again, we need not be concerned because it was all private funds.
• The basketball coach has traveled via charter jets on recruiting trips to the tune of more than $30,000.
But it’s only private funds.
• The AD and four members of the stadium advisory committee spent three days traveling via luxury corporate jet to Minnesota and California to check out new stadiums. The cost was more than $40,000.
No problem, however, because it’s all private funds.
• On Feb. 8, 9, 10 and 11, the football coaches and their wives visited a plush resort in the Phoenix area. The tab was reported to be in excess of $100,000. A Colorado open records request was stonewalled because there are no “public records” regarding this football coaches’ retreat. The deputy general counsel said it was a voluntary trip and if the coaches went, their annual leave would be docked. Sure!
Not to worry because it’s all private funds.
And now the kicker: Student athletes have been complaining for years about the lousy locker rooms at Hughes Stadium. The recent list of improvements to Hughes listed the upgrading of the rooms at $408,000.
I guess we can’t find enough private funds to get those repairs done.
What’s wrong with this picture? Who is the real customer for the CSU athletic department? Not the student athletes … and that’s a real shame! Maybe the CSU football team needs to join Northwestern in a union movement.
Let’s examine some recent facts that support this accusation, found in CSU documents obtained by Colorado open records requests:
• CSU paid more than $324,000, via the CSU Research Foundation, for the new athletic director to hire a million-dollar football coach. The expense portion of this check was more than $74,000, of which $69,190 was for charter flights — most likely for the new AD’s travel.
We are told not to worry because it was paid for by private funds.
• Shortly thereafter, the new, million-dollar basketball coach was hired. This time to the tune of more than $159,000. Of this amount, $84,281 was expenses, where $71,772 was for charter flights in a luxury corporate jet. Seems like everyone except the CSU AD flew commercial. They then spent $1,085 in Longmont for a “celebration supper.”
We should not be concerned because it was all private funds.
• CSU is currently paying the above-mentioned Kowalczyk more than $120,000 a year on his contract buy-out.
Not to worry, it’s all private funds.
• The basketball team went on a four-day excursion to the Bahamas to the tune of more than $50,000. CSU paid for 28 people to travel: nine basketball players plus 19 others. Wow! Do we need 19 “hangers on” to play one game in four days?
Again, we need not be concerned because it was all private funds.
• The basketball coach has traveled via charter jets on recruiting trips to the tune of more than $30,000.
But it’s only private funds.
• The AD and four members of the stadium advisory committee spent three days traveling via luxury corporate jet to Minnesota and California to check out new stadiums. The cost was more than $40,000.
No problem, however, because it’s all private funds.
• On Feb. 8, 9, 10 and 11, the football coaches and their wives visited a plush resort in the Phoenix area. The tab was reported to be in excess of $100,000. A Colorado open records request was stonewalled because there are no “public records” regarding this football coaches’ retreat. The deputy general counsel said it was a voluntary trip and if the coaches went, their annual leave would be docked. Sure!
Not to worry because it’s all private funds.
And now the kicker: Student athletes have been complaining for years about the lousy locker rooms at Hughes Stadium. The recent list of improvements to Hughes listed the upgrading of the rooms at $408,000.
I guess we can’t find enough private funds to get those repairs done.
What’s wrong with this picture? Who is the real customer for the CSU athletic department? Not the student athletes … and that’s a real shame! Maybe the CSU football team needs to join Northwestern in a union movement.
My idea for an alternative that would provide a steady revenue stream, research opportunities, internship and work study for students and benefit athletics, is to build a Cutting edge sports performance training and research center analogous to the Olympic training center in Colorado Springs but for all athletes - professional to recreational to novice, teams and individuals.
CSU should take advantage of the facilities already in place such as EPIC with a great pool system and 2 sheets of ice and the outdoor culture of athletics already here. Seminars, conferences, studies, individual assessments, training for coaches, counseling...... It would promote physical fitness and could address the growing obesity epidemic and carve a unique niche for CSU appropriate to our community and university.
People would come to train and study here all year round. We already have famous athletes and coaches - just not football. there are also analogous facilities in Florida. Just think - maybe the Broncos would come here for training camp and the cutting edge of sports performance. And, it wouldn't be a behemoth and would not require hundreds of millions of dollars, changes in city infrastructure, or take up 15 acres of land or stand 6 stories high.
CSU should take advantage of the facilities already in place such as EPIC with a great pool system and 2 sheets of ice and the outdoor culture of athletics already here. Seminars, conferences, studies, individual assessments, training for coaches, counseling...... It would promote physical fitness and could address the growing obesity epidemic and carve a unique niche for CSU appropriate to our community and university.
People would come to train and study here all year round. We already have famous athletes and coaches - just not football. there are also analogous facilities in Florida. Just think - maybe the Broncos would come here for training camp and the cutting edge of sports performance. And, it wouldn't be a behemoth and would not require hundreds of millions of dollars, changes in city infrastructure, or take up 15 acres of land or stand 6 stories high.
I absolutely agree with Larry Watson’s Soapbox (“ Football is a bad bet for the future of CSU,” Oct. 13,”) regarding CSU’s tunnel-visioned decision to fund an on-campus stadium.Brainstorming alternate methods for raising money for the university would challenge CSU’s creative leadership, which is what we pay them to do. Other sports (basketball, baseball, soccer, and volleyball, etc.) all lose recognition and funding in this ill-focused football stadium decision.
As Watson stated, it is worth standing up to “expensive, foolish ideas.”
As Watson stated, it is worth standing up to “expensive, foolish ideas.”
Damage control, Amy? thank you to the Coloradoan for exposing this process for what it has been - anything but honest, open, inclusive and above board. You model a (redundant, controversial, unneeded, unimportant, wildly expensive) football stadium bid process after the capital dome? and take advantage of tax write offs for a public institution (which means less money in the taxpayer pool for our government) by asking the contractor to submit donation offers along with bids. Where are all the ecstatic donors who will give us this stadium for FREE!!!!!!! Even then, we said no and there was tremendous push back from all factions. We don't want your Trojan Horse. But instead, you go ahead and have done whatever necessary, covert strategizing, excluding reason and evidence and avoiding legitimate questions about the impacts, process, financing and need, in order to "get this thing done" Yes, Jack Graham was overheard saying this way back during the Stadium Advocacy Committee days. It does smack of dirt.
I hear that engineers are designing pumps for the new stadium since the water table is so high (10-15 feet). And - what would have happened with that stadium in the week of flood rains, where would they have pumped the water to? Larimer county will spend $100 million on flood recovery efforts - sure gives some perspective when we can expect more of the same weather events, more wild fire, the need for better engineering, money for future disasters ..... And they want to direct hundreds of millions of dollars into a football stadium built on priceless state land diverted from academics, tax free and and the debt owned by the people of the state of Colorado and students at CSU. Will they borrow based on pledges (only 50% of pledges result in donations on average) or actual money in hand. So many questions, so few answers.
I hear that engineers are designing pumps for the new stadium since the water table is so high (10-15 feet). And - what would have happened with that stadium in the week of flood rains, where would they have pumped the water to? Larimer county will spend $100 million on flood recovery efforts - sure gives some perspective when we can expect more of the same weather events, more wild fire, the need for better engineering, money for future disasters ..... And they want to direct hundreds of millions of dollars into a football stadium built on priceless state land diverted from academics, tax free and and the debt owned by the people of the state of Colorado and students at CSU. Will they borrow based on pledges (only 50% of pledges result in donations on average) or actual money in hand. So many questions, so few answers.
"Athletics and the visibility that comes with them can have a positive impact on a university and the cultural life of the campus and community, he said. " And he said he regrets the divisiveness that was created by this project and the conduct of the SAC. The decision has obviously been made. There has been no conversation - there has been every attempt to ignore and avoid conversation, mislead, bait and switch. Dr Frank - I stood up at the microphone in front of you last August 2012 expressing reasons for opposition. I was heckled and drowned out by stadium supporters and you just sat there and said nothing. You were the one to set the tone. You have been completely inaccessible and have insulated yourself from questions, conversation or dissent.
Yes, athletics are good for our community and CSU and we have athletes - running, track and field, basketball, swimming, equestrian, cycling, triathlon, volleyball, ultrarunning, mountain biking, shooting............................ Perhaps the athletics budget spending including coaching should reflect this (especially in male sports). Football is just one sport in athletics and to try and promote (force) the misogynistic and combative FOOTBALL culture over and above all with a football stadium in the middle of the academic campus is folly and a complete misdirection from academics an academic money and land.
Yes, athletics are good for our community and CSU and we have athletes - running, track and field, basketball, swimming, equestrian, cycling, triathlon, volleyball, ultrarunning, mountain biking, shooting............................ Perhaps the athletics budget spending including coaching should reflect this (especially in male sports). Football is just one sport in athletics and to try and promote (force) the misogynistic and combative FOOTBALL culture over and above all with a football stadium in the middle of the academic campus is folly and a complete misdirection from academics an academic money and land.
"Hughes Stadium is not in an optimal location, he said. One of the goals for having an on-campus stadium, like so many universities have, is to foster interest in the football program and to bring alumni and families to campus to see its academic facilities" Why do we need to foster so much interest in football? Why football as a proxy for academics? Why football first? Increased applications from football are from the lowest performing tier of students by ACT score. Is this who Dr Frank is trying to appeal to? Why is an institution of higher learning indulging in this kind of expensive pursuit not related to academics nor promoting academics? This is for football fans, not students. For students, Hughes is in an optimal location away from where they are trying to study, sleep, and live.
We already have events and festivals to rally around that are compatible with our community. Plus, you write without any regard to the students or professors. CSU and FC depend on each other. CSU gets to pay professors less than peer institutions because FC is such a desirable place to live and attracts professors. CSU would not be as desirable if it were 50 miles to the east. And CSU attracts students and professors and adjuncts now without a new football stadium next to dorms where students are trying to live, study and work and embedded within the academic center - indeed now classrooms in the stadium so academics gets to pay even more for it. I call that a distraction to education and research and a diversion of money earned by academics. Just think how Alabama-ins would admire Hughes nestled in the foothills next to the reservoir and mountain parks with all the hiking and recreational activities.
I understand that Tyler has written that EVERY dean supports this stadium. Has this been "proven"? Tyler doesn't even know what a Dean does and that statement - repeated from Jack Graham at SERTOMA (and recorded) - is patently false. Should they do an anonymous poll to get to the truth? Or how about an honest poll of all the faculty and students and residents. Your assertion about spending is really interesting too. You do realize that money you cite as spent on academics is generated by academics - do you think for some warped reason there should be parity for football? Or that spending is an excuse to divert invaluable academic land to football. Also, you also point to the $500 million capital campaign - some of which went to football. Donations are only 3% of total revenue (check CSU budget reports) and again - I fail to see how that supports spending hundreds of millions on a football stadium.
Maybe, Tyler, you should start supporting Hughes as the football stadium and be glad that CSU has a football team at all. I didn't agitate against football before even though I knew about the excessive and escalating spending for many years. It was the roll out of Jack Graham's big (bad) dream against the backdrop of 4 years frozen faculty salaries while they increased football subsidies and the student fee contribution (when students are borrowing to be in school) each by 100% from 2005-2012, paying a football coach 1.5 million and 9 assistant coaches 150,000 - 250,000 each at a time when state contributions were declining, the disproportionate spending on football in the athletic department and lack of support for athletes training in Olympic sports and now diverting land and spending hundreds of millions for a new football stadium in order to spend their way to football glory - all at the expense of CSU academics, athletes and it's students.
So - how does the spending on academics AT ALL argue for a football stadium? And, if you say profit then you need a reality check. If you say increased student applications, you don't realize that is for a winning team, not a stadium and academic research has shown that those applications are from the lowest tier of students by ACT scores. I know you said it was "PROVEN" that they were better applications but that flies directly in the face of what academic experts say. I believe the evidence, not you.
Thank you! And thank you for your recognition of John and SueEllen. CSU does value these initiatives but their focus on football as a proxy for academics is misguided - at best. It is the professor like these and many others and the development and investment into stellar academic programs through-out the university that should be showcased to attract out of state students. Along with our unparalleled physical location and city. CSU would not be CSU if it were in Ault. And the athletic budget should be spent more evenly on other sports (and which reflect the sports talent already here) and give opportunities to our academically deserving and talented student athletes. Keep football at Hughes, we do not need another stadium.
Maybe, Tyler, you should start supporting Hughes as the football stadium and be glad that CSU has a football team at all. I didn't agitate against football before even though I knew about the excessive and escalating spending for many years. It was the roll out of Jack Graham's big (bad) dream against the backdrop of 4 years frozen faculty salaries while they increased football subsidies and the student fee contribution (when students are borrowing to be in school) each by 100% from 2005-2012, paying a football coach 1.5 million and 9 assistant coaches 150,000 - 250,000 each at a time when state contributions were declining, the disproportionate spending on football in the athletic department and lack of support for athletes training in Olympic sports and now diverting land and spending hundreds of millions for a new football stadium in order to spend their way to football glory - all at the expense of CSU academics, athletes and it's students.
So - how does the spending on academics AT ALL argue for a football stadium? And, if you say profit then you need a reality check. If you say increased student applications, you don't realize that is for a winning team, not a stadium and academic research has shown that those applications are from the lowest tier of students by ACT scores. I know you said it was "PROVEN" that they were better applications but that flies directly in the face of what academic experts say. I believe the evidence, not you.
Thank you! And thank you for your recognition of John and SueEllen. CSU does value these initiatives but their focus on football as a proxy for academics is misguided - at best. It is the professor like these and many others and the development and investment into stellar academic programs through-out the university that should be showcased to attract out of state students. Along with our unparalleled physical location and city. CSU would not be CSU if it were in Ault. And the athletic budget should be spent more evenly on other sports (and which reflect the sports talent already here) and give opportunities to our academically deserving and talented student athletes. Keep football at Hughes, we do not need another stadium.
As a new Fort Collins resident and retired university professor from Michigan, where I taught for more than 30 years at Central Michigan University, I’m no stranger to the tension between academic missions and athletic ambitions. So watching CSU trying to impersonate a big-time athletic school is poignant. My school, CMU, is comparable to CSU in enrollment and athletic standing: Both are NCAA Division 1 teams, but with decidedly second-tier standing in the football world of collegiate athletics.Whereas CMU usually does well against its MAC rivals, it harbors no further athletic pretensions. But CSU apparently dreams of big-time athletics. My former university regularly plays one of the downstate juggernauts — namely, Michigan or Michigan State — but CMU is just a warmup for their serious games against Ohio State and Wisconsin. Can the CSU game against Alabama this season be dignified as anything more than a scrimmage for Alabama?
Back in the halcyon days of state funding for universities at 80 percent while state residents paid the other 20 percent, CMU, and schools like it, could expect to play on a level financial field with Michigan and MSU. Now, that distribution has reversed, with students having to pay for 80 percent of their education. Is it any wonder that most of them finish their degrees with burdensome debt? Understandably, therefore, with its enrollment worries and money getting scarcer, CSU is grasping for a quick fix.
I discussed this state of affairs with my daughter-in law, Tiffany, who, along with my daughter, is visiting me. Both work for the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, where Tiffany represents the provost’s office at the Dearborn campus and knows the financial picture for Michigan. Since the start of the recession in 2007, Michigan has weathered that storm without touching its substantial endowment. In fact, the president of Michigan, Mary Sue Coleman, began hiring faculty from distressed institutions and building on Michigan’s academic programs. Now there’s a university president who knows what a university is supposed to be.
Back in the halcyon days of state funding for universities at 80 percent while state residents paid the other 20 percent, CMU, and schools like it, could expect to play on a level financial field with Michigan and MSU. Now, that distribution has reversed, with students having to pay for 80 percent of their education. Is it any wonder that most of them finish their degrees with burdensome debt? Understandably, therefore, with its enrollment worries and money getting scarcer, CSU is grasping for a quick fix.
I discussed this state of affairs with my daughter-in law, Tiffany, who, along with my daughter, is visiting me. Both work for the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, where Tiffany represents the provost’s office at the Dearborn campus and knows the financial picture for Michigan. Since the start of the recession in 2007, Michigan has weathered that storm without touching its substantial endowment. In fact, the president of Michigan, Mary Sue Coleman, began hiring faculty from distressed institutions and building on Michigan’s academic programs. Now there’s a university president who knows what a university is supposed to be.
CSU officials say a “miscommunication” with the state’s top building official prompted them to make and then withdraw a controversial request that contractors hoping to build the university’s on-campus football stadium promise to donate cash to the project before being hired.University officials say they were trying to maximize private donations to the $226.5 million stadium project, and say they thought they’d been given the green light to make the unusual request. While Colorado State University often asks contractors to provide scholarships or internships for students, it had never before asked a contractor to make an outright cash donation.
“We were just exploring and we didn’t go down that road,” CSU Vice President for Operations Amy Parsons said on Wednesday. “We wanted to challenge the contractors to be creative.”
Stadium critics said CSU was creating a “pay to play” scenario in which only builders who agreed to donate would be considered for this contract and future taxpayer-funded work. Colorado Ethics Watch has been closely monitoring the stadium bidding process and has filed numerous public-records requests as a result. Executive Director Luis Toro said the now-withdrawn language flagged by State Architect Larry Friedberg raised concerns.
“The legitimate concern that people had, at least in the first round, is saying you have to contribute. That’s almost soliciting a pay-to-play situation,” he said. “For public entities, that’s definitely out of bounds under normal circumstances.”
The challenge, he said, is that while CSU is a public entity, it’s trying to fund the stadium without using public money. Straddling those two worlds complicates matters, Toro said.
“We think that it’s good they recognized the bad message the earlier version sent and took steps to correct that,” he said. “The reality is that the cat’s out of the bag and people know they will be expected to make a contribution to the project.”
Parsons said people who are unfamiliar with the university’s purchasing processes might see the now-withdrawn language as “unusual,” but she stopped short of saying CSU erred in telling contractors they were expected to donate.
“We were just exploring and we didn’t go down that road,” CSU Vice President for Operations Amy Parsons said on Wednesday. “We wanted to challenge the contractors to be creative.”
Stadium critics said CSU was creating a “pay to play” scenario in which only builders who agreed to donate would be considered for this contract and future taxpayer-funded work. Colorado Ethics Watch has been closely monitoring the stadium bidding process and has filed numerous public-records requests as a result. Executive Director Luis Toro said the now-withdrawn language flagged by State Architect Larry Friedberg raised concerns.
“The legitimate concern that people had, at least in the first round, is saying you have to contribute. That’s almost soliciting a pay-to-play situation,” he said. “For public entities, that’s definitely out of bounds under normal circumstances.”
The challenge, he said, is that while CSU is a public entity, it’s trying to fund the stadium without using public money. Straddling those two worlds complicates matters, Toro said.
“We think that it’s good they recognized the bad message the earlier version sent and took steps to correct that,” he said. “The reality is that the cat’s out of the bag and people know they will be expected to make a contribution to the project.”
Parsons said people who are unfamiliar with the university’s purchasing processes might see the now-withdrawn language as “unusual,” but she stopped short of saying CSU erred in telling contractors they were expected to donate.
Soapbox: CSU should redirect football dollars to academics
In Albert Powell’s April 12 soapbox (“It’s time to embrace the stadium”), the Coloradoan did not enforce its own policy that requires “Sources (either a URL or by naming the source) for factual assertions in all submissions).” This casts significant doubt on the credibility of anything presented in Mr. Powell’s soapbox submission.
Mr. Powell stated that “Occasional claims to the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that people on campus and in Fort Collins support [the stadium] move and look forward to it. A small, highly vocal minority would have you believe otherwise, but don’t buy it.” He did not provide any sources for his “evidence.”
Two separate polls were undertaken in mid-2014, one non-scientific survey and one using scientific polling methods (http://noconow.co/1yyDu3f) to evaluate the Fort Collins community opinion regarding the on-campus issue. The non-scientific poll showed 59 percent “against” the on-campus stadium, 37 percent “for” and 4 percent “neutral.” The scientific poll reported similar disapproval results: 59.9 percent “strongly or moderately disapprove,” 24.9 percent “strongly or moderately approve” and 15.2 percent “neutral/do no care.”
The segmented analysis of the latter study showed that the majority of respondents — age 40 and younger, women, men, Democrats, Republicans and independents — all voiced disapproval of the on-campus stadium. Both of these polls were performed following the Associated Students of CSU student survey in 2012 , which showed 67 percent of CSU students were “... still opposed ...” to the on-campus stadium, even after being told at the time that “... no public funds will be used in its construction ...” Of course, with the recent sale of revenue bonds for the construction of the on-campus stadium, this is no longer the case.
Mr. Powell’s soapbox focused on CSU “... finally (having) a stadium that is worthy of a FBS institution and program ...” and “... getting CSU into a top-five conference ...” but completely ignores the inevitable added future costs to CSU when college football players become paid employees of the university, according to a Washington Post article at .
In addition, with the rapid growth of scientific research focused on football-related traumatic brain injury (TBI) (a recent study of high school football players observed differences in brain development based on the level of head impacts experienced after one season of football, and the increased observation of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in retired NFL players, according to the Journal of Neurotrauma, CSU health care costs and legal fees for future diagnoses of TBI and CTE in former and current CSU football players should eventually make college football a cost prohibitive sport.
If CSU and CSU President Tony Frank want to be leaders in the university community or, as Mr. Powell stated, “... act like the major land-grant public university that it actually is ...,” then CSU should lead by example and redirect the financial resources presently used to support the CSU football program toward academic programs, staff and students.
Tom Perkins lives in Fort Collins.
Mr. Powell stated that “Occasional claims to the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that people on campus and in Fort Collins support [the stadium] move and look forward to it. A small, highly vocal minority would have you believe otherwise, but don’t buy it.” He did not provide any sources for his “evidence.”
Two separate polls were undertaken in mid-2014, one non-scientific survey and one using scientific polling methods (http://noconow.co/1yyDu3f) to evaluate the Fort Collins community opinion regarding the on-campus issue. The non-scientific poll showed 59 percent “against” the on-campus stadium, 37 percent “for” and 4 percent “neutral.” The scientific poll reported similar disapproval results: 59.9 percent “strongly or moderately disapprove,” 24.9 percent “strongly or moderately approve” and 15.2 percent “neutral/do no care.”
The segmented analysis of the latter study showed that the majority of respondents — age 40 and younger, women, men, Democrats, Republicans and independents — all voiced disapproval of the on-campus stadium. Both of these polls were performed following the Associated Students of CSU student survey in 2012 , which showed 67 percent of CSU students were “... still opposed ...” to the on-campus stadium, even after being told at the time that “... no public funds will be used in its construction ...” Of course, with the recent sale of revenue bonds for the construction of the on-campus stadium, this is no longer the case.
Mr. Powell’s soapbox focused on CSU “... finally (having) a stadium that is worthy of a FBS institution and program ...” and “... getting CSU into a top-five conference ...” but completely ignores the inevitable added future costs to CSU when college football players become paid employees of the university, according to a Washington Post article at .
In addition, with the rapid growth of scientific research focused on football-related traumatic brain injury (TBI) (a recent study of high school football players observed differences in brain development based on the level of head impacts experienced after one season of football, and the increased observation of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in retired NFL players, according to the Journal of Neurotrauma, CSU health care costs and legal fees for future diagnoses of TBI and CTE in former and current CSU football players should eventually make college football a cost prohibitive sport.
If CSU and CSU President Tony Frank want to be leaders in the university community or, as Mr. Powell stated, “... act like the major land-grant public university that it actually is ...,” then CSU should lead by example and redirect the financial resources presently used to support the CSU football program toward academic programs, staff and students.
Tom Perkins lives in Fort Collins.