re: Stadium expansion approved by BOT

Exactly. $60 isn't shite. Which was my original hypothesis

quote:

---

But seriously, our state needs to have a conversation about how poorly compensated our faculty are

---

I agree. I looked at a postilion they had open because I was thinking of moving to the area. The salaries were ridiculously low.

Personally, I think it's more concerning that a Tyson and a former Senator are trying to use a not exactly truthful reason for not supporting this. It makes me wonder what their motivation is long term. What do they have to gain by it passing/not passing? That should be the real story here.

quote:

---

I take them at their word that they legitimately have those concerns.

---

I would advise never taking a politician at their word just because they're a politician. One of the BOT actually voted no yesterday because this wouldn't lower the cost of tuition. You can't be more clueless than that excuse.

quote:

---

I don't see any bond measures offered for academics or facilities. Were those offered I don't think they would enjoy the same support as this measure.

---

That's not the Athletic Departments concern. It's a money making entity on campus and they aren't responsible for what the academic arm does. They shouldn't, and thankfully won't, be punished because the Enlgish department can't pay off a bond as fast.

quote:

---

I do see Athletics continuing to suck up our campus space with athlete only facilities that don't really advance the university's mission

---

This isn't doing that.

quote:

---

. I don't care about the "shifting the balance of luxury suites vs cheap seats" stuff.

---

To act like upper deck corner seats are the same as premium field level seats is naïve. I don't think you're naïve so I'm not really sure why you think this way.

Since IMO this benefits the donor class only, I believe the priorities are wrong. I am for improving the fan experience for Tom from Hot Springs, Dick from Dumas and Harry from Sheridan. And for students (you of a). One of the great things about college football vs NFL and one thing we used to do particularly well is cater to the average fan. I am afraid we are losing that focus

I am also concerned from a business perspective. Spending $200M requires a strong demand and an excellent case made in its favor. I see development plans in NWA all day. 4 story buildings on Emma. Dense row houses in Springdale east of Thompson. More Legacy buildings all over NWA. Crazy subdivisions in Elm Springs. Wild and crazy shite that there is just no demand for. I will admit there may be demand for the suites, etc but I don't see demand for 3000 end zone lower bowl seats. I haven't seen the north EZ > 50% full since September 2010. IMO, the case hasn't been made

Further, current revenues aren't enough to support the debt service of these bonds. They had to include an assumption for additional revenue from the new seats. So what happens if they don't sell like hot cakes? What if we have a few crappy years? What if interest in attending cfb games continues to wane for a 6th straight year in 2016? Who services this debt?

Wally just officially wrote the worst shite of his terrible career

LINK

exactly

I do understand the magnitude of my statement

the worst ever just wrote his worst ever

Bill Vickery called Pryor out Sunday morning and said he was only doing it for financial reasons. He invited him to come and his show and dispute that if he liked.

quote:

---

Ok let's see who's right

Look up in the stadium corners at all the games and let me know how packed they are

---

I hate those corners and seeing them half or entirely empty on national TV.

I've always said that we don't need to increase capacity as much as we need to move it around, especially with the addition of the much-needed premium seating in the NEZ.

This will never happen, but we should simply get rid of two or three sections in each corner of the upper deck (509-511, 517-519, 506-508, 500-502). Half of those I mentioned (the 510s) are technically visitor seating and are sparsely populated even during big games.

Those seats suck and are constantly on StubHub going for a song. We'll never have an issue selling premium seating, so why not shift capacity a little?

quote:

---

we should simply get rid of two or three sections in each corner of the upper deck (509-511, 517-519, 506-508, 500-502). Half of those I mentioned (the 510s) are technically visitor seating and are sparsely populated even during big games.

---

I disagree about them being "sparsely populated even during big games" because I've been to most of the big games lately. They mainly only have a lot of empties during the non-conference crap games.

Rather than remove capacity, those sections should just be cheap, like $20 per game. Advertise them as cheap and you'll sell some as season tickets.