Financial Facts
Stadium construction costs as estimated by the contractor in 2014:
The original contractor estimate, just one year ago, was $220 Million to build the stadium.
The so called, "estimated" costs in 2015:
One year later, CSU stated that, with interest, they would tmake payments of $451 Million dollars for the proposed stadium.
The REAL costs ... almost half a billion!
The $451 Million estimated costs from CSU does not include the following costs and unsettled items:
The original contractor estimate, just one year ago, was $220 Million to build the stadium.
The so called, "estimated" costs in 2015:
One year later, CSU stated that, with interest, they would tmake payments of $451 Million dollars for the proposed stadium.
The REAL costs ... almost half a billion!
The $451 Million estimated costs from CSU does not include the following costs and unsettled items:
|
|
The above amounts will bring the total cost of the proposed stadium to well over Half a Billion dollars! It is hard for many of us to imagine how much a Half Billion dollars really is: half billion is five hundred million, or the cost of 1,667 new homes -- where the average cost of a new home is $300,000.
In other words, CSU is proposing to build a football stadium to be used for six hours, six times a year, that will cost more than building 1,667 new homes.
The proposed stadium will cost $13,888 per seat, ($500,000,000)/36,000 seats). It is hard to find another college stadium in the WORLD that costs that much per seat!
Financial analysis provided by: Bernie Koppenhofer
3014 County Fair Lane
Fort Collins, Co. 80528
970-232-4102
In other words, CSU is proposing to build a football stadium to be used for six hours, six times a year, that will cost more than building 1,667 new homes.
The proposed stadium will cost $13,888 per seat, ($500,000,000)/36,000 seats). It is hard to find another college stadium in the WORLD that costs that much per seat!
Financial analysis provided by: Bernie Koppenhofer
3014 County Fair Lane
Fort Collins, Co. 80528
970-232-4102
Want to learn what others say about the financial facts. Read some of the articles and soapboxes below.
Dear Editor:
Please replace CSU’s Summary of Options with this document. CSU says its information is “internal and external,” but it’s unattributed, "cherry picked,” and biased.
Information below is verifiable via internet. It uses CSU median numbers for costs and for donations, unless they are blatantly erroneous. It considers important circumstances impacting the General Fund. One, is a football program that at best breaks even. Two, is a football
program that consistently produces top 25 teams and corresponding profits, calculated as $240,000,000 over 30 years.
Minimum Hughes (Rennovation): $31,500,000
Initial Cost is $39,000,000 (CSU median figure). If donations are $7,500,000 (CSU median figure), Net Cost is $31,500,000 from the GF (General Fund).
With “top ranks and corresponding profits” (possible even next year), the General Fund gains all revenues above the cost of the program.
Hughes 2050 (Major Rebuild): Cost equals $3,800,000/year for 30 years
Initial Cost is $97,000,000, including: Hughes Minimum at 39,000,000 and adding 4,000 seats at $17,000,000 (source, CSU). Then, to build the equivalent of Boise State’s 2008 Stueckle Sky Center, a stadium upgrade virtually identical to “Hughes 2050,” costs $41,000,000 today (source, Insee)…$37,500,000 in 2008.
Stueckle has all the “premium” aspects of CSU plans, 80,000 more square feet than CSU plans, two elevator towers, and the world’s largest movable window. If donations are $30,000,000, Net Cost is a $67,000,000 revenue bond.
With “program at best breaks even,” the GF pays $115,000,000; with “top ranks and profits,” the GF gains $125,000,000.
On-Campus, Phase One: Cost equals $11,100,000/year for 30 years
Initial Cost is $236,000,000, including: Hughes Maintenance at $9,000,000 (cost of maintenance until Fall, 2018), the CSU construction estimate of $189,000,000, and a minimum 20% cost overrun (that every concrete stadium has had) of $38,000,000. If donations are
$42,500,000, Net Cost is a $193,500,000 revenue bond.
With “program that at best breaks even,” the GF pays $332,600,000; with “top 25 ranks and profits,” the GF pays $192,600,000.
On-Campus P3: Cost equals the equivalent of $15,900,000/year for 30 years
Initial Cost is $295,000,000, including: Hughes Maintenance of $9,000,000, CSU’s construction estimate of $225,000,000, a 20% cost overrun of $45,000,000, and a Debt Reserve Fund (financed either privately or by CSU) of $16,000,000. Net Costs first include $28,000 first include $28,000,000 for Hughes Maintenance and Debt Reserve (if financed). Second, the “lease” payments—after
applying $47,500,000 in donations—are $477,000,000 ($15,900,000/year/30 years).
With “program that at best breaks even," the GF pays $505,000,000; with “top 25 ranks and profits,” the GF pays $265,000,000.
What about promoter CLS’s revenue projections? Forget them. Their unrealistic analysis pretends the football program is free.
But program profit, not projected revenue, determines the stadium’s cost to the General Fund. Boise State (in a stadium
now having everything CSU wants) gives an apt example of “program profit corresponding to top 25 ranks,” $6,800,000
revenue above program costs for 2012 (source, Sportsmoney). If the Rams have tremendous success most seasons, earnings
like Boise’s would provide about $240,000,000 profit, over 30 years, towards a stadium. (That’s factored in above.)
Remember, that in attendance, location, admissions, game‐day experience and donations, sports economists see no benefit in
this project realistic enough to justify spending general funds. And Options 3 and 4 seriously harm the General Fund.
Remember also, though the local economy benefits temporarily from any CSU building project (Options 2‐4), the opposite is true for students. They will have to pay for it. So honesty about costs matters.
Please replace CSU’s Summary of Options with this document. CSU says its information is “internal and external,” but it’s unattributed, "cherry picked,” and biased.
Information below is verifiable via internet. It uses CSU median numbers for costs and for donations, unless they are blatantly erroneous. It considers important circumstances impacting the General Fund. One, is a football program that at best breaks even. Two, is a football
program that consistently produces top 25 teams and corresponding profits, calculated as $240,000,000 over 30 years.
Minimum Hughes (Rennovation): $31,500,000
Initial Cost is $39,000,000 (CSU median figure). If donations are $7,500,000 (CSU median figure), Net Cost is $31,500,000 from the GF (General Fund).
With “top ranks and corresponding profits” (possible even next year), the General Fund gains all revenues above the cost of the program.
Hughes 2050 (Major Rebuild): Cost equals $3,800,000/year for 30 years
Initial Cost is $97,000,000, including: Hughes Minimum at 39,000,000 and adding 4,000 seats at $17,000,000 (source, CSU). Then, to build the equivalent of Boise State’s 2008 Stueckle Sky Center, a stadium upgrade virtually identical to “Hughes 2050,” costs $41,000,000 today (source, Insee)…$37,500,000 in 2008.
Stueckle has all the “premium” aspects of CSU plans, 80,000 more square feet than CSU plans, two elevator towers, and the world’s largest movable window. If donations are $30,000,000, Net Cost is a $67,000,000 revenue bond.
With “program at best breaks even,” the GF pays $115,000,000; with “top ranks and profits,” the GF gains $125,000,000.
On-Campus, Phase One: Cost equals $11,100,000/year for 30 years
Initial Cost is $236,000,000, including: Hughes Maintenance at $9,000,000 (cost of maintenance until Fall, 2018), the CSU construction estimate of $189,000,000, and a minimum 20% cost overrun (that every concrete stadium has had) of $38,000,000. If donations are
$42,500,000, Net Cost is a $193,500,000 revenue bond.
With “program that at best breaks even,” the GF pays $332,600,000; with “top 25 ranks and profits,” the GF pays $192,600,000.
On-Campus P3: Cost equals the equivalent of $15,900,000/year for 30 years
Initial Cost is $295,000,000, including: Hughes Maintenance of $9,000,000, CSU’s construction estimate of $225,000,000, a 20% cost overrun of $45,000,000, and a Debt Reserve Fund (financed either privately or by CSU) of $16,000,000. Net Costs first include $28,000 first include $28,000,000 for Hughes Maintenance and Debt Reserve (if financed). Second, the “lease” payments—after
applying $47,500,000 in donations—are $477,000,000 ($15,900,000/year/30 years).
With “program that at best breaks even," the GF pays $505,000,000; with “top 25 ranks and profits,” the GF pays $265,000,000.
What about promoter CLS’s revenue projections? Forget them. Their unrealistic analysis pretends the football program is free.
But program profit, not projected revenue, determines the stadium’s cost to the General Fund. Boise State (in a stadium
now having everything CSU wants) gives an apt example of “program profit corresponding to top 25 ranks,” $6,800,000
revenue above program costs for 2012 (source, Sportsmoney). If the Rams have tremendous success most seasons, earnings
like Boise’s would provide about $240,000,000 profit, over 30 years, towards a stadium. (That’s factored in above.)
Remember, that in attendance, location, admissions, game‐day experience and donations, sports economists see no benefit in
this project realistic enough to justify spending general funds. And Options 3 and 4 seriously harm the General Fund.
Remember also, though the local economy benefits temporarily from any CSU building project (Options 2‐4), the opposite is true for students. They will have to pay for it. So honesty about costs matters.
CSU Chief Financial Officer Rich Schweigert says that Standard & Poors may downgrade CSU bonds due to the increased debt required to build the new football stadium (Collegian, Feb 5). That means that the construction of a new football stadium will create a significant financial risk that will be borne by CSU students, President Frank’s assurances to the contrary notwithstanding.
Standard & Poors fears that the revenues from the new football stadium will be too low to guarantee the bond payments and to pay for a dramatic expansion of the football program. If that occurs, the university will be forced to either raise tuition and fees or to cut educational programs.
President Frank’s promises that the stadium will generate sufficient revenues are 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.
The report’s assumption of a permanent 22% increase in football game attendance is absurd. College football attendance has been declining nationally. The large majority of college football programs are money losers. The report simply ignores these inconvenient facts.
Mr. Schweigert also says that the university could not have timed this project better given that the market is at historic lows.
Certainly this is an odd statement to make in light of 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.
Standard & Poors fears that the revenues from the new football stadium will be too low to guarantee the bond payments and to pay for a dramatic expansion of the football program. If that occurs, the university will be forced to either raise tuition and fees or to cut educational programs.
President Frank’s promises that the stadium will generate sufficient revenues are 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.
The report’s assumption of a permanent 22% increase in football game attendance is absurd. College football attendance has been declining nationally. The large majority of college football programs are money losers. The report simply ignores these inconvenient facts.
Mr. Schweigert also says that the university could not have timed this project better given that the market is at historic lows.
Certainly this is an odd statement to make in light of 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.
Tony Frank is quoted as saying: ” The argument that we spend too much on athletics falls flat with me when our $ 9.4 million university subsidy includes a repayment of $7.4 million back to us in the form of tuition from scholarships. A net of $2.4 million for the visibility and campus life of our athletics programs does not, to me, approach the line of excess.”
Well , truth be told, Tony is obviously a large animal vet and certainly not a professor of economics. He is either totally ignorant of basic economics or fudging the truth so he can spend $460,000,000 on a new stadium for an athletics dept. that lost $25,000,000 in FY 2014. This loss is made up by student and taxpayers.
According to a retired CSU professor of economics, the only way Tony’s statement could be accurate is if there was no cost to educating, feeding, housing, buying books and paying fees for the athletic students hired to play the games. A CSU professor with 5 athletes in a class of 50 does not get paid 90% of his/her salary. The building mortgage, heat, electricity, insurance, maintenance is not reduced by 10%. CSU is just the middle man in paying the employees, vendors and other costs.
TONY, YOUR STATEMENT IS POPPYCOCK!
Well , truth be told, Tony is obviously a large animal vet and certainly not a professor of economics. He is either totally ignorant of basic economics or fudging the truth so he can spend $460,000,000 on a new stadium for an athletics dept. that lost $25,000,000 in FY 2014. This loss is made up by student and taxpayers.
According to a retired CSU professor of economics, the only way Tony’s statement could be accurate is if there was no cost to educating, feeding, housing, buying books and paying fees for the athletic students hired to play the games. A CSU professor with 5 athletes in a class of 50 does not get paid 90% of his/her salary. The building mortgage, heat, electricity, insurance, maintenance is not reduced by 10%. CSU is just the middle man in paying the employees, vendors and other costs.
TONY, YOUR STATEMENT IS POPPYCOCK!
In a 10-20-14 Coloradoan article Tony Frank was quoted as saying: ” I really dislike the idea of using general fund dollars for non-core educational activities.” The CSU athletics dept. lost over $25,000,000 in FY 2014. That money comes from the students and Colorado taxpayers via the CSU general fund.
Why is he having a $460,000,000 (40 years) football stadium built???? The students and the Colorado taxpayers will again pay, BIG time. More classic TONY BALONEY!
Item #2—– In his 20 Nov. 2014 letter to the BOG Tony says: ” While it is clear the topic (Stadium) is an emotional one for many people and the processes we employed were not as effective as I might have wished at depolarizing the discussion and fostering a more fact based dialogue……..”
The fact remains that CSU was asked by four (4) reputable community based organizations to supply a pro-stadium spokesperson and CSU REFUSED to supply said individual consequently the public debates were canceled. The organizations were 1. The Rotary Club, 2. NPR Radio 3. The League of Women Voters and the 4. The Coloradoan. In an early February Coloradoan article by Nick Coletrane both Tony Frank and the BOG chairperson Dorothy Horrell refused to comment on the story, then Governor Horrell put out a ”gag order” to the rest of the board.
That’s Double TONY BALONEY!!
Why is he having a $460,000,000 (40 years) football stadium built???? The students and the Colorado taxpayers will again pay, BIG time. More classic TONY BALONEY!
Item #2—– In his 20 Nov. 2014 letter to the BOG Tony says: ” While it is clear the topic (Stadium) is an emotional one for many people and the processes we employed were not as effective as I might have wished at depolarizing the discussion and fostering a more fact based dialogue……..”
The fact remains that CSU was asked by four (4) reputable community based organizations to supply a pro-stadium spokesperson and CSU REFUSED to supply said individual consequently the public debates were canceled. The organizations were 1. The Rotary Club, 2. NPR Radio 3. The League of Women Voters and the 4. The Coloradoan. In an early February Coloradoan article by Nick Coletrane both Tony Frank and the BOG chairperson Dorothy Horrell refused to comment on the story, then Governor Horrell put out a ”gag order” to the rest of the board.
That’s Double TONY BALONEY!!
From Anita Wright's Soapbox
The Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce based support for the stadium project upon economic analyses prepared by Development Research Partners using data provided by ICON Venue (stadium project manager).
Note the conflict of interest here. ICON took this data from a CSL feasibility study paid for by CSU (based upon a low 9.7 percent survey response rate), and found to be completely unrealistic by numerous nationally recognized sports economists. Along with a “remarkably overestimated attendance” projection, the DRP analyses significantly overstated potential economic benefits to the community.
In a June 27, 2014, Coloradoan article, article, we are led to believe that this new stadium will generate $142 million in economic benefit to the community. Unfortunately, this assertion is based upon unrealistic projections and does not take into account the costs to the community. Joel D. Maxcy, Ph.D., states, “In fact, the study does not even consider that more food and beverage consumption at the stadium will mean loss at local bars and restaurants and that football crowds will cause non-football fans to stay away.” Businesses near the UMN’s on-campus stadium experience a 20 percent-30 percent loss in revenues on game days. “Most major sports events create a dip in business …
The fact is, sports fans are not good tourists. They do not bring money or curiosity or consumer tastes. "They come to see a game, have some beers, cheer loudly, get sick in the street, and go home.” (Eight World Cups, by George Vecsey) “Empirical studies don’t show that an on-campus stadium will help commerce, but will actually hurt most businesses.” (Zimbalist)
Although there would be an economic benefit to those involved in the construction of a stadium, only ~15 percent of the total expense would directly benefit the local economy. The cost to the community in construction disruptions, huge carbon footprint, $30 million-40 million infrastructure expenses, traffic congestion, air/noise pollution, parking in neighborhoods, crime/safety issues and impacted views are not mentioned. Other excluded costs could affect state taxpayers: the economic drag resulting from stadium debt, the annual $15 million CSU athletics loss, and cost of financing $110+ million (totaling $175M-250M).
Although deferred maintenance to Hughes Stadium (impacted by the TABOR amendment’s vice grip) will cost about $30 million, this is projected to be spent over 10 years. Hughes has been consistently inspected and is structurally sound but needing cosmetic and utility system upgrades.
We are reminded of Frank’s statement to the City Council (referred to by Lisa Poppaw in the April 24, 2012 meeting), that if the city is not in support of this project, he would not go forward with it. Triton Polling & Research conducted an unbiased survey of Fort Collins residents and found (with 95 percent confidence) that for every 10 residents in favor of the stadium, 24 were opposed.
Should Dr. Frank eventually decide that building a main-campus stadium via private donations/bonds or as a privatized investment is not to be pursued, we could finally move forward knowing the tremendous costs and negative impacts on this community will have been avoided.
CSU has a unique and beautiful location for its football stadium. What if CSU takes advantage of all Hughes has to offer, including its great traditions, and takes pride in making it the outstanding facility it can be.
Anita Wright is a Colorado State University alum and retired budget officer.
The Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce based support for the stadium project upon economic analyses prepared by Development Research Partners using data provided by ICON Venue (stadium project manager).
Note the conflict of interest here. ICON took this data from a CSL feasibility study paid for by CSU (based upon a low 9.7 percent survey response rate), and found to be completely unrealistic by numerous nationally recognized sports economists. Along with a “remarkably overestimated attendance” projection, the DRP analyses significantly overstated potential economic benefits to the community.
In a June 27, 2014, Coloradoan article, article, we are led to believe that this new stadium will generate $142 million in economic benefit to the community. Unfortunately, this assertion is based upon unrealistic projections and does not take into account the costs to the community. Joel D. Maxcy, Ph.D., states, “In fact, the study does not even consider that more food and beverage consumption at the stadium will mean loss at local bars and restaurants and that football crowds will cause non-football fans to stay away.” Businesses near the UMN’s on-campus stadium experience a 20 percent-30 percent loss in revenues on game days. “Most major sports events create a dip in business …
The fact is, sports fans are not good tourists. They do not bring money or curiosity or consumer tastes. "They come to see a game, have some beers, cheer loudly, get sick in the street, and go home.” (Eight World Cups, by George Vecsey) “Empirical studies don’t show that an on-campus stadium will help commerce, but will actually hurt most businesses.” (Zimbalist)
Although there would be an economic benefit to those involved in the construction of a stadium, only ~15 percent of the total expense would directly benefit the local economy. The cost to the community in construction disruptions, huge carbon footprint, $30 million-40 million infrastructure expenses, traffic congestion, air/noise pollution, parking in neighborhoods, crime/safety issues and impacted views are not mentioned. Other excluded costs could affect state taxpayers: the economic drag resulting from stadium debt, the annual $15 million CSU athletics loss, and cost of financing $110+ million (totaling $175M-250M).
Although deferred maintenance to Hughes Stadium (impacted by the TABOR amendment’s vice grip) will cost about $30 million, this is projected to be spent over 10 years. Hughes has been consistently inspected and is structurally sound but needing cosmetic and utility system upgrades.
We are reminded of Frank’s statement to the City Council (referred to by Lisa Poppaw in the April 24, 2012 meeting), that if the city is not in support of this project, he would not go forward with it. Triton Polling & Research conducted an unbiased survey of Fort Collins residents and found (with 95 percent confidence) that for every 10 residents in favor of the stadium, 24 were opposed.
Should Dr. Frank eventually decide that building a main-campus stadium via private donations/bonds or as a privatized investment is not to be pursued, we could finally move forward knowing the tremendous costs and negative impacts on this community will have been avoided.
CSU has a unique and beautiful location for its football stadium. What if CSU takes advantage of all Hughes has to offer, including its great traditions, and takes pride in making it the outstanding facility it can be.
Anita Wright is a Colorado State University alum and retired budget officer.
What’s the real cost of CSU athletics and a new main-campus stadium?
In fiscal year 2014, CSU students and Colorado taxpayers contributed a whopping $25,360,000 to balance the CSU athletics budget.
Let’s examine the actual FY 2014 athletics expenditures and income.
Expenses totaled $38,900,000 ($38.9M), which consisted of:
Now let’s do the basic math:
$13.6 M (SGR)- $38.9M (expenses) = – $25.3 M (loss)
This loss includes $5.3 M in student taxes, also known as fees. The balance comes from the general fund, which is comprised of student tuition and Colorado taxpayer dollars.
The CSU student government will tell you that ”students get to vote on the fee for athletics.” But that’s not the whole truth. Student representatives, unfortunately, get to vote only on the yearly athletic fee increases, not on the base amount.
How does this fact stack up to President Tony Frank’s statement:
”At CSU, our net investment [in athletics] is extraordinarily low …”
Perhaps his definition of “low” is different than ours, since $25.36M seems pretty high to the rest of us.
In the past Dr. Frank has made cockamamie statements about how the cost to hire the athletes ($ 7.5 M) is offset by the University subsidy ($10 M+) to athletics. This is pure financial fantasy.
A retired CSU Economics professor analyzed Dr. Frank’s statements and concluded the only way it could be true was if educating, feeding, housing, tutoring, buying books, paying professors, paying building debt, heating and insuring the athletes cost $0 — and that is physically and financially impossible!
In an October 20-2014 Coloradoan article, Dr. Frank was quoted as saying:
”I really dislike the idea of spending general fund dollars for non-core educational activities.”
But wait, aren’t a new stadium and athletics “non-core educational activities?” Perhaps we should we nominate Dr. Frank for the annual Pinocchio Award!
The new main-campus stadium will only exacerbate the cash drain from the CSU athletics Department.
Dr. Steven Shulman, Head of the CSU Economics Department., says in a recent submission to the Collegian:
”Then there is the dirty little secret that the revenues generated by a new stadium could easily be insufficient to pay down the debt. That financial risk will be borne by students, who could find themselves on the hook for increased tuition and fees.”
Finally, Dr. Victor Matheson, a neutral third-party economist from Holy Cross College, stated in the Coloradoan:
“[the new stadium] relied a lot more on wishful thinking than actual numbers.”
According to the Coloradoan article, Dr. Matheson ”didn’t have suggestions for the right way to build a new stadium except to call it a financially unsound pursuit.”
Given the facts, building a new-main campus stadium for a department that is losing $25,360,000 a year is illogical, unethical, and a terrible misuse of General Funds dollars!
In fiscal year 2014, CSU students and Colorado taxpayers contributed a whopping $25,360,000 to balance the CSU athletics budget.
Let’s examine the actual FY 2014 athletics expenditures and income.
Expenses totaled $38,900,000 ($38.9M), which consisted of:
- $14.2 M in salaries and benefits
- $12.5 M in operations
- $7.5 M for Grants in Aid to hire the athletes
- $4.7 M in major enhancements/remodels to the athletics facilities
Now let’s do the basic math:
$13.6 M (SGR)- $38.9M (expenses) = – $25.3 M (loss)
This loss includes $5.3 M in student taxes, also known as fees. The balance comes from the general fund, which is comprised of student tuition and Colorado taxpayer dollars.
The CSU student government will tell you that ”students get to vote on the fee for athletics.” But that’s not the whole truth. Student representatives, unfortunately, get to vote only on the yearly athletic fee increases, not on the base amount.
How does this fact stack up to President Tony Frank’s statement:
”At CSU, our net investment [in athletics] is extraordinarily low …”
Perhaps his definition of “low” is different than ours, since $25.36M seems pretty high to the rest of us.
In the past Dr. Frank has made cockamamie statements about how the cost to hire the athletes ($ 7.5 M) is offset by the University subsidy ($10 M+) to athletics. This is pure financial fantasy.
A retired CSU Economics professor analyzed Dr. Frank’s statements and concluded the only way it could be true was if educating, feeding, housing, tutoring, buying books, paying professors, paying building debt, heating and insuring the athletes cost $0 — and that is physically and financially impossible!
In an October 20-2014 Coloradoan article, Dr. Frank was quoted as saying:
”I really dislike the idea of spending general fund dollars for non-core educational activities.”
But wait, aren’t a new stadium and athletics “non-core educational activities?” Perhaps we should we nominate Dr. Frank for the annual Pinocchio Award!
The new main-campus stadium will only exacerbate the cash drain from the CSU athletics Department.
Dr. Steven Shulman, Head of the CSU Economics Department., says in a recent submission to the Collegian:
”Then there is the dirty little secret that the revenues generated by a new stadium could easily be insufficient to pay down the debt. That financial risk will be borne by students, who could find themselves on the hook for increased tuition and fees.”
Finally, Dr. Victor Matheson, a neutral third-party economist from Holy Cross College, stated in the Coloradoan:
“[the new stadium] relied a lot more on wishful thinking than actual numbers.”
According to the Coloradoan article, Dr. Matheson ”didn’t have suggestions for the right way to build a new stadium except to call it a financially unsound pursuit.”
Given the facts, building a new-main campus stadium for a department that is losing $25,360,000 a year is illogical, unethical, and a terrible misuse of General Funds dollars!
Dr. David Ridpath is an Assistant Professor of Sports Management in the Business School at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio. He holds a doctorate in Higher Education Administration from West Virginia University (2002).
Dr. Ridpath has years of practical experience in the sports industry and teaches classes in marketing, sponsorship, risk management, and sports law. His primary research interest is issues and problems in intercollegiate athletics with a focus on academic integrity and governance reform. This expertise has led to numerous refereed and peer-review journal articles, book chapters, and interviews.
Dr. Ridpath received his Bachelor’s Degree from Colorado State University in 1990. He graduated as a distinguished military graduate in Army ROTC and spent 12 years on active duty and in the Army National Guard. He has worked within the Athletics Departments at Weber State and Marshall University and is a certified college and international wrestling official.
The Save Our Stadium organizations thank Dr. Ridpath for his strong commitment to CSU and his willingness to share his knowledge with us. We also extend our appreciation to Dr. Sutherland for his support.
Position Paper Supporters for Colorado State University Excellence Save Our Stadium – Hughes
Position: We believe that there are more effective ways to support the Land Grant Mission, the prestige, and the excellence of Colorado State University than building a new football stadium.Colorado State University is the geographic, economic, social, visual, and cultural heart of the Fort Collins community. Every aspect of the University has an impact on the community and its residents, many of whom are employed by, alums of, students of, retired from, donors to, or parents of students of CSU. Recently, the President of Colorado State University, Tony Frank, and his new Athletic Director, Jack Graham, unveiled a vision of building a new 40-50,000 capacity football stadium on the main campus. The underlying reason for this vision is to bring greater revenue into the University, given the decreasing state funding to CSU as a result of the TABOR amendment, Amendment 23 and the overall economy.
"If investment in big-time college athletics is unlikely to yield high returns from the perspective of any given institution, it is an even less attractive proposition from the perspective of institutions as a whole. The distinction between the two perspectives is precisely analogous to the distinction we see in the entrapment game. From the perspective of any individual bidding to win the $20 bill, boosting one’s bid beyond that of the current high bidder entails at least the possibility of a favorable outcome. From the perspective of bidders as a group, however, additional bidding serves only to guarantee a smaller overall return than before. It is the same in college athletics. No matter how many hundreds of millions of dollars institutions spend, only 20 teams will finish in the AP’s top 20 in football each year, and only four teams will reach the final four in the NCAA basketball tournament. It is time to make the right decision."
Dr. Ridpath has years of practical experience in the sports industry and teaches classes in marketing, sponsorship, risk management, and sports law. His primary research interest is issues and problems in intercollegiate athletics with a focus on academic integrity and governance reform. This expertise has led to numerous refereed and peer-review journal articles, book chapters, and interviews.
Dr. Ridpath received his Bachelor’s Degree from Colorado State University in 1990. He graduated as a distinguished military graduate in Army ROTC and spent 12 years on active duty and in the Army National Guard. He has worked within the Athletics Departments at Weber State and Marshall University and is a certified college and international wrestling official.
The Save Our Stadium organizations thank Dr. Ridpath for his strong commitment to CSU and his willingness to share his knowledge with us. We also extend our appreciation to Dr. Sutherland for his support.
Position Paper Supporters for Colorado State University Excellence Save Our Stadium – Hughes
Position: We believe that there are more effective ways to support the Land Grant Mission, the prestige, and the excellence of Colorado State University than building a new football stadium.Colorado State University is the geographic, economic, social, visual, and cultural heart of the Fort Collins community. Every aspect of the University has an impact on the community and its residents, many of whom are employed by, alums of, students of, retired from, donors to, or parents of students of CSU. Recently, the President of Colorado State University, Tony Frank, and his new Athletic Director, Jack Graham, unveiled a vision of building a new 40-50,000 capacity football stadium on the main campus. The underlying reason for this vision is to bring greater revenue into the University, given the decreasing state funding to CSU as a result of the TABOR amendment, Amendment 23 and the overall economy.
"If investment in big-time college athletics is unlikely to yield high returns from the perspective of any given institution, it is an even less attractive proposition from the perspective of institutions as a whole. The distinction between the two perspectives is precisely analogous to the distinction we see in the entrapment game. From the perspective of any individual bidding to win the $20 bill, boosting one’s bid beyond that of the current high bidder entails at least the possibility of a favorable outcome. From the perspective of bidders as a group, however, additional bidding serves only to guarantee a smaller overall return than before. It is the same in college athletics. No matter how many hundreds of millions of dollars institutions spend, only 20 teams will finish in the AP’s top 20 in football each year, and only four teams will reach the final four in the NCAA basketball tournament. It is time to make the right decision."