facility needs before rice eccles expansion?

[bigmanUTE]

it has become apparent that chris hill will throw out any excuse he can to not upgrade rice eccles. so with the football and softball facilities having just been finished here is a list that still needs to come before hill even looks at expanding RES.

1. basketball facility (24mill)
2. tennis courts (2mill)
3. 50m swimming pool? (?)
4. soccer field
5. indoor golf facility
6. ski building
7. track and field throwing area
8. huntsman center (?)
9. rice eccles

am i missing anything on this list? heres to hoping RES and the HC renovations come right after the announced basketball facility upgrades as the hyper gym was down right atrocious. Also really looking forward to the new student life building thats being completed in (fall 2014)!!! even though i know that isnt directly connected to the athletic department it will still be really nice for students.

[Diehard Ute]

it has become apparent that chris hill will throw out any excuse he can to not upgrade rice eccles. so with the football and softball facilities having just been finished here is a list that still needs to come before hill even looks at expanding RES.

1. basketball facility (24mill)
2. tennis courts (2mill)
3. 50m swimming pool? (?)
4. huntsman center (?)
5. rice eccles

am i missing anything on this list? heres to hoping RES and the HC renovations come right after the announced basketball facility upgrades as the hyper gym was down right atrocious. Also really looking forward to the new student life building thats being completed in (fall 2014)!!! even though i know that isnt directly connected to the athletic department it will still be really nice for students.

Frankly as much as the new locker rooms are needed, being prudent about the expansion is wise, especially with athletics having to dip into savings the last couple years to cover expensively

The facility you left out is a new soccer field

The tennis courts are already under way

[LA Ute]

Frankly as much as the new locker rooms are needed, being prudent about the expansion is wise, especially with athletics having to dip into savings the last couple years to cover expensively

The facility you left out is a new soccer field

The tennis courts are already under way

It's good to remember that the football facility is still only half paid-for. So there's that to worry about. I was told last week that they want to break ground on the basketball facility this winter (IIRC) but will probably have to wait until the spring. I may be a little off about that. Having seen the football building I have to say I can see the wisdom of making that the top priority. There's no way it won't help recruiting a lot. The same will surely be true of the hoops practice building.

[bigmanUTE]

it seems that chris hill may be having a change of heart, and that after the basketball facility is finished by 2015 that rice eccles stadium could be next. according to the video, hill states we may see construction within the next 2-5 years even. http://www.kutv.com/sports/features/talkin-sports/stories/vid_762.shtml honestly, thank god. the building may cost $40 mill but at least this will pay itself back within the next 10 years unlike tennis, golf, swimming, and other infrastructures that he harped about in the excellence fundraising campaign. i understand that many sports facilities are lacking compared to other pac-12 teams but you need to invest in the main sports in order to gain interest among the fans as well as remain competitive with other teams. recruits will be more excited to come to utah with a new basketball/football facility and a renovated huntsman and rice eccles stadium. and when you compete in those sports you earn more money to put into the lesser sports.

[Hadrian]

I think the timetable for the stadium expansion is dependent on our success on the field. If we go something like 3-9 this year, stadium expansion isn't going to happen anytime soon because demand and donations are going to decrease. If we end up 8-4 or better, I think it will happen in the next two years.

[OrangeUte]

I think the timetable for the stadium expansion is dependent on our success on the field. If we go something like 3-9 this year, stadium expansion isn't going to happen anytime soon because demand and donations are going to decrease. If we end up 8-4 or better, I think it will happen in the next two years.

I think you are correct. RES could earn a simultaneous upgrade that may occur concurrent with the other projects. But going out and laying an egg this season could kill that. Clearly the U doesn't mind having a bunch of construction projects going on at once. Last year when I was on campus there were cranes everywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[Utah]

I think the timetable for the stadium expansion is dependent on our success on the field. If we go something like 3-9 this year, stadium expansion isn't going to happen anytime soon because demand and donations are going to decrease. If we end up 8-4 or better, I think it will happen in the next two years.

I could see an 8-4 year with a lot of returning starters moving expansion up quickly. They could really hype this by selling like this:

We are starting expansion. We are going to add 5,000 seats and are taking season ticket requests for those seats immediately.

That way they can get the money for the season tickets up front, and immediately put that towards the construction costs.

[Bacana Ute]

I don't see RES expanding any time soon. For starters, how long is the contract with Olympic torch, arch and museum. Nothing can be done until that is up. Then comes the more important question in my mind. Will there be continual demand to fill the stadium. I understand that currently season tickets aren't available, but if the team does not perform this year and next, demand will begin to dwindle. Would you rather have a 45,000 seat stadium that is full most games or a 60,000 seat stadium that is only occasionally full?

[Utah]

I don't see RES expanding any time soon. For starters, how long is the contract with Olympic torch, arch and museum. Nothing can be done until that is up. Then comes the more important question in my mind. Will there be continual demand to fill the stadium. I understand that currently season tickets aren't available, but if the team does not perform this year and next, demand will begin to dwindle. Would you rather have a 45,000 seat stadium that is full most games or a 60,000 seat stadium that is only occasionally full?


I'd rather have a 50,000 seat stadium that is packed in good seasons and at 45,000 in bad seasons.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I will ask him tonight.

683

[Diehard Ute]

Olympic stuff is gone in 2015, although the Cauldron will remain as a part of the expansion

[UteBeliever aka Port]

I don't see RES expanding any time soon. For starters, how long is the contract with Olympic torch, arch and museum. Nothing can be done until that is up. Then comes the more important question in my mind. Will there be continual demand to fill the stadium. I understand that currently season tickets aren't available, but if the team does not perform this year and next, demand will begin to dwindle. Would you rather have a 45,000 seat stadium that is full most games or a 60,000 seat stadium that is only occasionally full?

Welcome to Utahby5, Dr. Hill!

[UteBeliever aka Port]

I'd rather have a 50,000 seat stadium that is packed in good seasons and at 45,000 in bad seasons.

Yeah, well...they aren't going to do the south end zone and only increase capacity by 5K.

[Hadrian]

Yeah, well...they aren't going to do the south end zone and only increase capacity by 5K.
I think Hill mentioned recently that the planned expansion would bring us up to about 53,000 (similar to Autzen stadium).

[Bacana Ute]

Welcome to Utahby5, Dr. Hill!

Now if only I could get Dr. Hill's salary :)

[Bacana Ute]

Olympic stuff is gone in 2015, although the Cauldron will remain as a part of the expansion
Thanks, I was looking around and couldn't find anything definite on how long the Olympic stuff would be there. I know they are talking about moving the arch to Park City and the museum somewhere else as well. I knew the Cauldron was going to stay it would just be moved back due to expansion. So hopefully by 2016 we are looking at the expansion actually happening.

[LA Ute]

Now if only I could get Dr. Hill's salary :)

There's lots of competition for it, judging by the number of people who know how to do his job better than he does. ;)

[sancho]

Now if only I could get Dr. Hill's salary :)

Did you major in math? There's your problem.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

Thanks, I was looking around and couldn't find anything definite on how long the Olympic stuff would be there. I know they are talking about moving the arch to Park City and the museum somewhere else as well. I knew the Cauldron was going to stay it would just be moved back due to expansion. So hopefully by 2016 we are looking at the expansion actually happening.

FWIW, the museum has been emptied. This happened a month or so ago and actually gave me great hope that something was afoot. The only things really left there are the cauldron (which you believe is staying) and the Hobermann Arch (which could be cleared from the area in a matter of a week or two.)

Let's take Doctah Hill out of the equation for a moment and examine this Olympic park hangup.

There *might* be an agreement in place for it to remain at RES until XXXX date, but clearly, as demonstrated by the Museum being cleared out of the building, there is nothing stopping the SLOC(?) from moving it SOONER if they agree/desire to do so.

As such, the Hobermann arch could be moved prior to they mystery date IF a home is found AND SLOC (?) agrees and wants to move it. This could happen very quickly I would imagine. It's not going to take long to disassemble that thing and transport it away from the stadium.

The Museum? We've covered it. It's already gone.

The Cauldron? Well, if you are right, it's not going anywhere and it's a moot point.

So, what needs to happen, purely in terms of the Olympic park, for the construction to happen?

A home needs to be found for the Arch, SLOC (if that is who controls the park) must agree to moving the arch.

I think maybe too much is being made of the Olympic park. Some of it's already moved and very little of it that remains is going to move and can be moved fairly easily if/when an agreement is reached *or* the mystery contract expires.

Do we know that the arch cannot be moved to another spot within the RES property? That might be another possibility.

The bottom line is that it is NOT the Olympic park holding this thing up.

It's Chris Hill.

[sancho]

It's Chris Hill.

Another point of view -- it's not Chris Hill, it's the football team. We are underdogs in 9 of 12 games this year. If we finish 3-9? What if it's years before we have another winning season? Having a winning season in the conference is not too much to ask before committing all the money to expansion. And that's my prediction - the expansion announcement will come within 6 months of our first 5-4 or better season in the Pac-12.

[Utah]

Another point of view -- it's not Chris Hill, it's the football team. We are underdogs in 9 of 12 games this year. If we finish 3-9? What if it's years before we have another winning season? Having a winning season in the conference is not too much to ask before committing all the money to expansion. And that's my prediction - the expansion announcement will come within 6 months of our first 5-4 or better season in the Pac-12.

I think this is the reason. If Utah goes out and gets 8 wins plus a bowl win, it would not shock me if come Feb/March we hear some news. If we suck, then it probably won't be looked at until at least after season ticket renewal due date.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

Another point of view -- it's not Chris Hill, it's the football team. We are underdogs in 9 of 12 games this year. If we finish 3-9? What if it's years before we have another winning season? Having a winning season in the conference is not too much to ask before committing all the money to expansion. And that's my prediction - the expansion announcement will come within 6 months of our first 5-4 or better season in the Pac-12.

It's ridiculous to pin this on the football program/team at this point, IMO. We've had one losing season in 10 years and in that time the team has been to 9 bowl games, won all but one including to BCS bowl wins and two perfect seasons. Much of it with much less exciting home schedules to draw fans in.

The season ticket renewals after a losing season are the same as they were the prior two.

This all on the moving goal that Hill has touted over the years. Leading up to 2004, already there were some in the media that asked Hill about expansion.

He cited a number of season tickets sold before he'd consider expanding. IIRC, it was 10K.

Well, following those "goals", Utah went undefeated and won a BCS bowl game.

Hill then moved the goal line.

The fans responded and season ticket sales soared.

The goal line was moved, yet again.

From that point, Utah went on to another undefeated season, this time under a different coach, headed to ANOTHER BCS game and beat Alabama.

The season ticket sales INCREASED again.

Hill moved the goal line, yet again.

Utah is basically maxed out on season ticket sales. When you take into account season tickets, student tickets, MUSS tickets, band tickets, tickets the football program reserves for players/coaches' friends and families and tickets allotted to visiting schools, there are no more season tickets to be sold.

The season tickets that have been sold are being renewed at a 98% clip. Even after a losing season and no bowl game.

Hill and others pointed to "Well, what happens after a losing season. Or something other than a 10 win season?" Well, we have our answer. The shine has worn off the PAC12 invite. Utah struggled in the first year and had a losing record in the 2nd.

Yet people are renewing at a 98% clip.

Additionally, the home schedule is becoming more attractive. 7 games and the likes of Michigan coming to town.

Huh...I wonder WHO we could get to come to SLC IF....IF....we had a 57K seat stadium instead of a 45K seat stadium? And would those home schedules bring in more visiting fans? Would they sell more tickets to locals? I'm guessing...yeah...they would.

Instead, we have Chris Hill basically moving the sticks every time the challenge is met both by the football program and the fans.

No. Politely, it's Chris Hill and his complete lack of faith in the fanbase and football program and seeming indifference to rising construction costs and the rising cost of money.

[Utah]

It's ridiculous to pin this on the football program/team at this point, IMO. We've had one losing season in 10 years and in that time the team has been to 9 bowl games, won all but one including to BCS bowl wins and two perfect seasons. Much of it with much less exciting home schedules to draw fans in.

The season ticket renewals after a losing season are the same as they were the prior two.

This all on the moving goal that Hill has touted over the years. Leading up to 2004, already there were some in the media that asked Hill about expansion.

He cited a number of season tickets sold before he'd consider expanding. IIRC, it was 10K.

Well, following those "goals", Utah went undefeated and won a BCS bowl game.

Hill then moved the goal line.

The fans responded and season ticket sales soared.

The goal line was moved, yet again.

From that point, Utah went on to another undefeated season, this time under a different coach, headed to ANOTHER BCS game and beat Alabama.

The season ticket sales INCREASED again.

Hill moved the goal line, yet again.

Utah is basically maxed out on season ticket sales. When you take into account season tickets, student tickets, MUSS tickets, band tickets, tickets the football program reserves for players/coaches' friends and families and tickets allotted to visiting schools, there are no more season tickets to be sold.

The season tickets that have been sold are being renewed at a 98% clip. Even after a losing season and no bowl game.

Hill and others pointed to "Well, what happens after a losing season. Or something other than a 10 win season?" Well, we have our answer. The shine has worn off the PAC12 invite. Utah struggled in the first year and had a losing record in the 2nd.

Yet people are renewing at a 98% clip.

Additionally, the home schedule is becoming more attractive. 7 games and the likes of Michigan coming to town.

Huh...I wonder WHO we could get to come to SLC IF....IF....we had a 57K seat stadium instead of a 45K seat stadium? And would those home schedules bring in more visiting fans? Would they sell more tickets to locals? I'm guessing...yeah...they would.

Instead, we have Chris Hill basically moving the sticks every time the challenge is met both by the football program and the fans.

No. Politely, it's Chris Hill and his complete lack of faith in the fanbase and football program and seeming indifference to rising construction costs and the rising cost of money.

Damn. Convinced me.

[Utah]

I'd buy season tickets if I didn't have to pony up $1500.

[sancho]

It's ridiculous to pin this on the football program/team at this point, IMO. We've had one losing season in 10 years

You can't cite the past 10 years. We have only two seasons in conference play, and we finished under .500 twice. This is a new thing, and it makes sense to give it a few years. Yes, we have renewed well. Obviously, that will not continue unless we perform. I don't see what's so bad about taking a cautious approach with so much money.

Again, we have to win some games before this will happen. I think one winning season will do it, but maybe they are waiting on consecutive winning seasons. That would not be such a bad plan, either.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I'd buy season tickets if I didn't have to pony up $1500.

That is a one time hit. After you get the tix, you only pay whatever donation is attached to the seats)

Save $4 a day(pack a lunch half the time, cut out daily $2 latte/starbucks) for the year and it almost gets you there.

[LA Ute]

Maybe Chris Hill was frightened in a large stadium when he was a small child. Either that, or he secretly hates Utah fans and wants to deprive them of the benefits of a larger stadium.

[OrangeUte]

I will ask him tonight.

683

Did you get him talking?

[FountainOfUte]

Or...maybe Chris Hill has seen what happened to our basketball attendance. It went from good, to bad, to dumpster fire in the course of two decades. He has to take a calculated risk with the stadium. If it works, he looks like a hero. If it backfires and last year's 5-7 is just the beginning of an ugly era (like our basketball has seen for the last eight--or arguably 13--years) then perhaps CH will be placing the university into a sticky financial situation that could have been avoided.

So, I'm guessing he sees a date out in the future where he knows the money (or the ability to acquire the assets) is assured no matter how the team is doing or how fans fill the stands in the short term; at the same time, he knows that if certain conditions line up just right, that he can pull it off sooner.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

Or...maybe Chris Hill has seen what happened to our basketball attendance. It went from good, to bad, to dumpster fire in the course of two decades. He has to take a calculated risk with the stadium. If it works, he looks like a hero. If it backfires and last year's 5-7 is just the beginning of an ugly era (like our basketball has seen for the last eight--or arguably 13--years) then perhaps CH will be placing the university into a sticky financial situation that could have been avoided.

So, I'm guessing he sees a date out in the future where he knows the money (or the ability to acquire the assets) is assured no matter how the team is doing or how fans fill the stands in the short term; at the same time, he knows that if certain conditions line up just right, that he can pull it off sooner.

I wish Vegas Ute posted here more frequently. He does a much better job of detailing the history of the handling of the basketball fan base than I could ever imagine.

His argument, and I think it has a lot of merit, is that Chris Hill "ate the seed" instead of "planting the corn". IOW, the students were basically ignored, and in terms of ticketing, abused during the glory years of Utah basketball. As such, they became disinterested or disenfranchised. So, you get what you now have. A lost generation of basketball fans.

You should be doing everything you can to get students and recent grads into football and basketball. It's part of the reason the stadium expansion is important. The MUSS is given a limited amount of seats. There are basically no season tickets or seats available for recent graduates.

The seed corn is once again being neglected or "eaten."

Utah football may very well have a lost generation if this trend of limiting student seats and having nothing for recent grads to buy continues.

[LA Ute]

I wish Vegas Ute posted here more frequently. He does a much better job of detailing the history of the handling of the basketball fan base than I could ever imagine.

His argument, and I think it has a lot of merit, is that Chris Hill "ate the seed" instead of "planting the corn". IOW, the students were basically ignored, and in terms of ticketing, abused during the glory years of Utah basketball. As such, they became disinterested or disenfranchised. So, you get what you now have. A lost generation of basketball fans.

You should be doing everything you can to get students and recent grads into football and basketball. It's part of the reason the stadium expansion is important. The MUSS is given a limited amount of seats. There are basically no season tickets or seats available for recent graduates.

The seed corn is once again being neglected or "eaten."

Utah football may very well have a lost generation if this trend of limiting student seats and having nothing for recent grads to buy continues.

Port, I love you; you know that. But this is an endless and unresolvable argument. Both sides just say the same things in response to one another, over and over again.

[SoCalPat]

Or...maybe Chris Hill has seen what happened to our basketball attendance. It went from good, to bad, to dumpster fire in the course of two decades. He has to take a calculated risk with the stadium. If it works, he looks like a hero. If it backfires and last year's 5-7 is just the beginning of an ugly era (like our basketball has seen for the last eight--or arguably 13--years) then perhaps CH will be placing the university into a sticky financial situation that could have been avoided.

So, I'm guessing he sees a date out in the future where he knows the money (or the ability to acquire the assets) is assured no matter how the team is doing or how fans fill the stands in the short term; at the same time, he knows that if certain conditions line up just right, that he can pull it off sooner.

If this were 20 years ago, I'd agree wholeheartedly. However, hoops attendance is down just about everywhere. Football is growing almost everywhere. Yes, there is caution in expanding too quickly (Tennessee is having a bit of buyer's remorse with its efforts to keep up with Michigan and Penn State, for example, and they're 7-8 years into a drought that ultimately Utah could be looking down the pipe as well). I'm not as pro-expansion as some, and I'm certainly with Hill when it comes to improving our facilities in the Olympic sports. In that regard, you could say I'm neutral or even anti-expansion. But those adamant about expansion are bringing much better arguments to the table than those who think Hill is acting prudently. I'm not saying the latter isn't happening, but I've yet to see one sensible, yet emphatic argument against expansion. I would like to see one.

[Utah]

Football pays the bills. Get the stadium expanded, get football competitive (and basketball as well), then worry about the Olympic sports. It's sad that's the way the world works, but no one cares about the softball field except the girl recruit and her parents. No one cares if the softball team goes 2-15 in conference play.

Get the locker room updated, expand the stadium to 50-55K, then move on to other sports.

[SoCalPat]

Football pays the bills. Get the stadium expanded, get football competitive (and basketball as well), then worry about the Olympic sports. It's sad that's the way the world works, but no one cares about the softball field except the girl recruit and her parents. No one cares if the softball team goes 2-15 in conference play.

Get the locker room updated, expand the stadium to 50-55K, then move on to other sports.

Two rebuttals and an agreement

1. I care if the softball team goes 2-15 in league play. I don't demand championships in the Olympic sports, but fielding competitive teams is something we all should want as Ute fans.

2. There isn't a soul alive who would have ever envisioned gymnastics becoming what it is today 35 years ago. We have to, at the very least, give the Olympic sports a boost of some kind so that we can have that dominant Olympic sport team(s). If all we care about is football, then we're not much better than Boise State, from a pure athletics standpoint (I think their success in hoops is almost by accident, and could be short-lived, but is still a million miles from what football has done).

3. I am in full agreement on the locker room. This is without question the most pressing demand facing the program today and it's long overdue and can only be properly done with a renovation/expansion of the SEZ.

[Diehard Ute]

The argument isn't against expansion, it's against expansion right now

It's a project that will cost well over the $50,000,000 mark the rebuild cost.

Reality is that's a separate fundraiser. So, you either do that, or all the other projects. We don't have the donors in place right now to do both, and frankly the basketball and football facilities are more important.

While additional ticket revenue is nice, the team still has expenses such as rent (which I'm guessing goes up after expansion).

I don't think anyone is against expansion, but I have no issues waiting a couple more years to start that project. We need to be wise with our money, especially while we're still not getting a full share of the conference revenue.

[Utah]

The argument isn't against expansion, it's against expansion right now

It's a project that will cost well over the $50,000,000 mark the rebuild cost.

Reality is that's a separate fundraiser. So, you either do that, or all the other projects. We don't have the donors in place right now to do both, and frankly the basketball and football facilities are more important.

While additional ticket revenue is nice, the team still has expenses such as rent (which I'm guessing goes up after expansion).

I don't think anyone is against expansion, but I have no issues waiting a couple more years to start that project. We need to be wise with our money, especially while we're still not getting a full share of the conference revenue.

So, what's going on with this rent thing? Who owns RES?

[SoCalPat]

So, what's going on with this rent thing? Who owns RES?

The University.

[chrisrenrut]

The argument isn't against expansion, it's against expansion right now

It's a project that will cost well over the $50,000,000 mark the rebuild cost.

Reality is that's a separate fundraiser. So, you either do that, or all the other projects. We don't have the donors in place right now to do both, and frankly the basketball and football facilities are more important.

While additional ticket revenue is nice, the team still has expenses such as rent (which I'm guessing goes up after expansion).

I don't think anyone is against expansion, but I have no issues waiting a couple more years to start that project. We need to be wise with our money, especially while we're still not getting a full share of the conference revenue.

I agree with this line of thinking. What is the ROI on the expansion? In simple terms, if we add 10,000 seats, and sell those seats at $400 per season, that is 12.5 years before we start seeing a profit on those seats, at the soonest. And that is assuming it is that simple, which it is not. There are a lot of additional risks, including the cost of financing, rent, upkeep, assuming we can sell out all of the seats for 12.5 years or more.

I'd like to see it get done from a big picture perspective, but I know I don't see the details that those in decision-making roles see.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

I agree with this line of thinking. What is the ROI on the expansion? In simple terms, if we add 10,000 seats, and sell those seats at $400 per season, that is 12.5 years before we start seeing a profit on those seats, at the soonest. And that is assuming it is that simple, which it is not. \


What is the return on investment for a softball stadium? A track? A women's soccer field?

Or a football or basketball facility, for that matter?

(I'd argue that the latter two at least "feed the beasts".)

The argument that there isn't a great ROI on doing the SEZ and the locker rooms is rendered ineffective when you start looking at the ROI on other projects for the athletic department where there is absolutely ZERO hope of every getting ANY return on those investments.

[Mormon Red Death]

I agree with this line of thinking. What is the ROI on the expansion? In simple terms, if we add 10,000 seats, and sell those seats at $400 per season, that is 12.5 years before we start seeing a profit on those seats, at the soonest. And that is assuming it is that simple, which it is not. There are a lot of additional risks, including the cost of financing, rent, upkeep, assuming we can sell out all of the seats for 12.5 years or more.

I'd like to see it get done from a big picture perspective, but I know I don't see the details that those in decision-making roles see.

You haven't figured in concessions, parking, crimson club donations etc...

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[wally]

The argument isn't against expansion, it's against expansion right now

It's a project that will cost well over the $50,000,000 mark the rebuild cost.

Reality is that's a separate fundraiser. So, you either do that, or all the other projects. We don't have the donors in place right now to do both, and frankly the basketball and football facilities are more important.

While additional ticket revenue is nice, the team still has expenses such as rent (which I'm guessing goes up after expansion).

I don't think anyone is against expansion, but I have no issues waiting a couple more years to start that project. We need to be wise with our money, especially while we're still not getting a full share of the conference revenue.

It may also be worth noting that the engineering and architecture on a project of that scope could take upward of a year (and cost up to $5MM). Construction would have to be planned around the FB season also I would assume. It is entirely reasonable that the project if announced today would not even break ground until early 2015. I haven't paid attention to how the university handles these projects. Do they announce them before or after the planning phase?

At any rate, my understanding is that the PAC12 wanted Utah to make immediate improvements to their non-revenue facilities upon induction to the confrence, am I wrong? If I am not wrong then is not Hill just making good on these promises? The projects listed for non-revenue sports seem to be projects that can be completed quickly to show progress toward getting up to PAC12 standards.

[LA Ute]

At any rate, my understanding is that the PAC12 wanted Utah to make immediate improvements to their non-revenue facilities upon induction to the confrence, am I wrong? If I am not wrong then is not Hill just making good on these promises? The projects listed for non-revenue sports seem to be projects that can be completed quickly to show progress toward getting up to PAC12 standards.

I think that was the commitment. REs needs upgrading, but it is not as far off the PAC-12 standard as the non-revenue facilities were. WSU's stadium holds just over 35,000. Universitiea are not generally expanding their stadiums to much beyond 55-60,000. Cal actually reduced the size of its stadium by 10,000 seats (it still holds 63,000). Arizona's capacity is 56,000 (which is about where I think we will be eventually).

[UteBeliever aka Port]

At any rate, my understanding is that the PAC12 wanted Utah to make immediate improvements to their non-revenue facilities upon induction to the confrence, am I wrong? If I am not wrong then is not Hill just making good on these promises?


I think that was the commitment.

Then why doesn't anyone associated with the athletic department disclose this important information? It would quash this kind of discussion in an instant. I'm of the opinion that if such a requirement was made, that it should be made public. It would help the fans understand what is going on and why. It would very likely lead to increased donations.

Instead, we don't hear a word about it? It's not as if Chris Hill hasn't been asked or had the chance to disclose such a requirement, commitment or agreement.

Seems awfully odd that such a commitment or agreement would exist but Hill would not talk about it when questioned over and over and over again about stadium expansion.

[LA Ute]

I don't think it's been confirmed. I don't really know, Port, what understandings might exist, or if any really do exist. I do know Hill's not a liar and that he makes decisions based on principle. Disagree with him all you want.

[concerned]

I think that was the commitment. REs needs upgrading, but it is not as far off the PAC-12 standard as the non-revenue facilities were. WSU's stadium holds just over 35,000. Universitiea are not generally expanding their stadiums to much beyond 55-60,000. Cal actually reduced the size of its stadium by 10,000 seats (it still holds 63,000). Arizona's capacity is 56,000 (which is about where I think we will be eventually).

And Stanford reduced its capacity from 90,000 to 50,000. Remember when it hosted a Super Bowl?