goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: Trim on April 28, 2010, 04:00:38 AM

Title: Feasibility
Post by: Trim on April 28, 2010, 04:00:38 AM
11:09
[Comment From Mark]
Can you tell us about the basketball practice facility? Any new updates.
11:10
[Comment From johns]
Can you give us some insight on how fund raising is going for the next facilities expansion?
11:10
[Comment From Norm]
Regarding the design of the basketball practice facility, will it “blend in” with Bramlage? Will expansion occur on the east and west sides of Bramlage? It would be nice to avoid the final product looking “uneven”. Will locker rooms and basketball offices be expanded with this project?
11:10
[Comment From John]
Do you expect to break ground on BB practice facility this year?
11:10
[Comment From Chris]
How much progress is being made towards the ground breaking of the new basketball practice facility?
11:13
Thanks Mark, John, Norm, John and Chris... well, everyone, for your questions re basketball practice facility!
The good news is that we are continuing to work on the feasibility of this project. In my mind it is our top facility priority at this moment in time. The initial discussions we have had are very encouraging.
Currently we anticipate that the facility would go on the east side of Bramlage- the master plan would include two courts, offices, lockerrooms, etc.
i'm excited about the progress.



12:12
[Comment From Jack]
You have publically commented about adding additional seating to Bramlage as an additional revenue generating avenue. I think I speak for many, when suggest filling a substantial portion of the large South tunnel with retractable seating in basketball configuration. This would add at least 150+ ticketed seats and eliminate the unsightly grey tarp that acts as a shooting backdrop for our opponents in the second half. Thanks, John. EMAW!
12:14
Thanks Jack- that is a suggestion that has been discussed- -there are some fire code and cost issues with that but it isa good idea - Not sure that'll happen this year but we'll continue to evaluate feasibility.
JC

http://www.kstatesports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=400&ATCLID=204934759

 :bball:   :excited:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: steve dave on April 28, 2010, 07:24:04 AM
I miss Bob Krause
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: kso_FAN on April 28, 2010, 07:25:03 AM
I miss Bob Krause

Do you forget that Krause actually thought Prince was a good football coach?  Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: catzacker on April 28, 2010, 07:27:21 AM
I miss Bob Krause

qft.  krause would've been looking at the feasability to construct the practice facility in solid gold.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: steve dave on April 28, 2010, 07:27:50 AM
I miss Bob Krause

Do you forget that Krause actually thought Prince was a good football coach?  Just sayin'.

You are confusing Krause (who I love) with Wefald (who I hate)
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: chum1 on April 28, 2010, 07:44:33 AM
How many years has this been going on, anyway?  Is there an inexpensive route we can go?  Like a modular practice facility?  I wonder if they've considered that.

Ultimately, this lends more support to my longstanding argument that we should be in the Mountain West.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: kso_FAN on April 28, 2010, 07:45:02 AM
I miss Bob Krause

Do you forget that Krause actually thought Prince was a good football coach?  Just sayin'.

You are confusing Krause (who I love) with Wefald (who I hate)

Meh.  I love your Krause talking point, but he was as big of a headcase as Wefald at the end.  The Krause/Prince secret LLC was ridiculous.  Granted, it was Wefald who moved in with Snyder while Krause was working Patterson.  At least Wefald had the excuse of being partially senile.  JMHO.  
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: WillieWatanabe on April 28, 2010, 07:47:28 AM
He's a fracking politician. Love it.  :love: :love:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: mcmwcat on April 28, 2010, 07:48:24 AM
what's the feasibility of putting a bubble over the outdoor courts next to the rec center?
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: steve dave on April 28, 2010, 07:48:33 AM
I miss Bob Krause

Do you forget that Krause actually thought Prince was a good football coach?  Just sayin'.

You are confusing Krause (who I love) with Wefald (who I hate)

Meh.  I love your Krause talking point, but he was as big of a headcase as Wefald at the end.  The Krause/Prince secret LLC was ridiculous.  Granted, it was Wefald who moved in with Snyder while Krause was working Patterson.  At least Wefald had the excuse of being partially senile.  JMHO.  

LOL at thinking Wefald wasn't behind the Prince agreement.  
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: kso_FAN on April 28, 2010, 07:51:23 AM
LOL at thinking Wefald wasn't behind the Prince agreement. 

FWIW, I think he was involved.  His "I didn't know about this" was very LOL as well.  Amazing what a mess K-State was at the time.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: pissclams on April 28, 2010, 07:54:59 AM
what's the feasibility of putting a bubble over the outdoor courts next to the rec center?
what's the feasibility of dropping the idea of building a practice facility that we don't need, that every k-state fan in the country has convinced themselves that we do need.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: chum1 on April 28, 2010, 07:57:12 AM
what's the feasibility of dropping the idea of building a practice facility that we don't need

Does merely talking about it while not actually doing anything count as dropping the idea?  

Krause was hired in the first place because he's a puppet and not a decision maker.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on April 28, 2010, 08:07:03 AM
krause's one weakness was his inability to tell wefald no.  a beautiful monster, killed by his own kindness.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: steve dave on April 28, 2010, 08:09:23 AM
krause's one weakness was his inability to tell wefald no.  a beautiful monster, killed by his own kindness.

^
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: captaincrap on April 28, 2010, 08:21:11 AM
LOL at thinking Wefald wasn't behind the Prince agreement. 

FWIW, I think he was involved.  His "I didn't know about this" was very LOL as well.  Amazing what a mess K-State was at the time.

And yet, despite all of the mess, the FBI was never involved. Would take a truly messy mess to be a FBI mess.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: kso_FAN on April 28, 2010, 08:22:53 AM
LOL at thinking Wefald wasn't behind the Prince agreement. 

FWIW, I think he was involved.  His "I didn't know about this" was very LOL as well.  Amazing what a mess K-State was at the time.

And yet, despite all of the mess, the FBI was never involved. Would take a truly messy mess to be a FBI mess.

True.  There is a big difference between incompetence and entitlement.  At least incompetence is fairly easy to clean up.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: pissclams on April 28, 2010, 08:24:05 AM
we need cheap materials and cheap labor, and cheap designs.  LET'S GET IT DONE.   

-KATSHOOPSFACILITY2010-
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 28, 2010, 08:27:56 AM
From what I hear there's not much left to "study" on the facility itself, now it's just the money part, and from what I hear Currie is playing it close to the vest . . . because as I have said there's likely going to be some haters on campus come unhinged when this is announced given the overall financial situation at K-State (and all state schools in Kansas).   They'll be convinced that they're somehow robbing academic endeavors blind to build this thing.

Then again, we are talking about a school that built a brand new $12 million dollar building to support an academic minor program, and are paying a former school pres $255K a year to "work" in that building.  



Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 28, 2010, 08:31:00 AM
i vote that we just give the basketball team the chester e peters recreation center and build a skywalk from it to bram.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: _33 on April 28, 2010, 08:33:06 AM
because as I have said there's likely going to be some haters on campus come unhinged when this is announced given the overall financial situation at K-State.

Academic Policy Wonks?
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: FHSU92 on April 28, 2010, 08:33:31 AM
we need cheap materials and cheap labor, and cheap designs.  LET'S GET IT DONE.   

-KATSHOOPSFACILITY2010-

we made the E8 without one (cheap or golden), not sure why the big deal  :dunno:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: waks on April 28, 2010, 08:35:20 AM
I second Daris's motion. Only loser frat guys go to the rec.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 28, 2010, 08:42:44 AM
I second Daris's motion. Only loser frat guys go to the rec.

knock knock
whos there
chester e peters
chester e peters who
chester e peters rec complex
do the e stand for eats? i bet it does. rofl. rofl. lmao. :woot: :woot:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 28, 2010, 08:43:22 AM
Yes 33 . . . the academic policy wonks.  :ohno:

You know, I'll probably get ripped by a couple of people I know who read this forum.  But I am at the point where I'd rather see one really nice practice court built next to Bramlage on the East side , then build all new nice looking athletic administration offices and ticket offices on the West Side, and let basketball take over the entirety of the old athletic adminitration offices and just renovate and expand the dressing room areas on the lower level.  
.  
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Trim on April 28, 2010, 09:58:25 AM
I'm contemplating splurging up to $10 on lunch today, but first, is there anybody here who'd be willing to do a quick feasibility study on this option?
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 28, 2010, 10:02:03 AM
I'm contemplating splurging up to $10 on lunch today, but first, is there anybody here who'd be willing to do a quick feasibility study on this option?

We'll get back to you in 3 years.

Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Trim on April 28, 2010, 10:04:19 AM
I'm contemplating splurging up to $10 on lunch today, but first, is there anybody here who'd be willing to do a quick feasibility study on this option?

We'll get back to you in 3 years.



I'LL BE HUNGRY BY NOON!  :curse:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on April 28, 2010, 10:06:16 AM
I'm contemplating splurging up to $10 on lunch today, but first, is there anybody here who'd be willing to do a quick feasibility study on this option?

We'll get back to you in 3 years.



I'LL BE HUNGRY BY NOON!  :curse:

hire an interim lunch.   :dunno:

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20100427/SPORTS03/4270389/Binghamton+University+signs+Macon+to+2-year+extension+to+remain+interim+basketball+coach
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Panjandrum on April 28, 2010, 11:09:54 AM
I talked to a friend of mine who works for one of the contracted firms.  I think Currie is downplaying where they're at.  According to him, it's on.  They blew it up and are starting all over again, but it will happen.

Also, it sounds like expanded seating is past the feasibility phase and into the 'how do we get more seats in there?' phase.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 28, 2010, 11:11:15 AM
I talked to a friend of mine who works for one of the contracted firms.  I think Currie is downplaying where they're at.  According to him, it's on.  They blew it up and are starting all over again, but it will happen.

Also, it sounds like expanded seating is past the feasibility phase and into the 'how do we get more seats in there?' phase.

they really need to add more premium seats. get rid of the media or make them watch the game from a tv in the basement or something.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: The42Yardstick on April 28, 2010, 11:24:02 AM
I talked to a friend of mine who works for one of the contracted firms.  I think Currie is downplaying where they're at.  According to him, it's on.  They blew it up and are starting all over again, but it will happen.

Also, it sounds like expanded seating is past the feasibility phase and into the 'how do we get more seats in there?' phase.

they really need to add more premium seats. get rid of the media or make them watch the game from a tv in the basement or something.

I will fight you
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: pissclams on April 28, 2010, 11:33:26 AM
I talked to a friend of mine who works for one of the contracted firms.  I think Currie is downplaying where they're at.  According to him, it's on.  They blew it up and are starting all over again, but it will happen.

Also, it sounds like expanded seating is past the feasibility phase and into the 'how do we get more seats in there?' phase.
wtf is a feasibility stage anyways?  if you spend 3 years stuck in feasibility, then the project probably isn't feasible.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: _33 on April 28, 2010, 11:35:46 AM
How much does a feasibility stage cost?  Is it even feasible?
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Panjandrum on April 28, 2010, 11:38:45 AM
I talked to a friend of mine who works for one of the contracted firms.  I think Currie is downplaying where they're at.  According to him, it's on.  They blew it up and are starting all over again, but it will happen.

Also, it sounds like expanded seating is past the feasibility phase and into the 'how do we get more seats in there?' phase.

they really need to add more premium seats. get rid of the media or make them watch the game from a tv in the basement or something.

They need to change how they handle the student seating.  I know all of the backstory behind it, and I get the arguments that it will kill the 'soul' of Bramlage, but we need money, and it's like there's a huge gold mine sitting under section 19-20, and we can't dig because there's some sort of sacred Indian thing on it.

We need more seats, and I'm totally for that, but we need to maximize the revenue that's there.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Trim on April 28, 2010, 11:40:52 AM
I talked to a friend of mine who works for one of the contracted firms.  I think Currie is downplaying where they're at.  According to him, it's on.  They blew it up and are starting all over again, but it will happen.

Also, it sounds like expanded seating is past the feasibility phase and into the 'how do we get more seats in there?' phase.

I've heard the same ast least as to the practice facility.  Seems contradictory to the "transparency" mantra.  Also seems like there were a bunch of chatters chatting at him that would probably donate some money if there was something tangible to donate to.  :dunno:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: pissclams on April 28, 2010, 11:42:02 AM
I talked to a friend of mine who works for one of the contracted firms.  I think Currie is downplaying where they're at.  According to him, it's on.  They blew it up and are starting all over again, but it will happen.

Also, it sounds like expanded seating is past the feasibility phase and into the 'how do we get more seats in there?' phase.

they really need to add more premium seats. get rid of the media or make them watch the game from a tv in the basement or something.

They need to change how they handle the student seating.  I know all of the backstory behind it, and I get the arguments that it will kill the 'soul' of Bramlage, but we need money, and it's like there's a huge gold mine sitting under section 19-20, and we can't dig because there's some sort of sacred Indian thing on it.

We need more seats, and I'm totally for that, but we need to maximize the revenue that's there.
the thought that the student section is a huge gold mine just isn't true.  where are these huge k-state supporters that for years haven't been able to get to the chairbacks (despite ponying up tons of cash to the AD) going to come from?  they don't exist and it's LOLABLE that ADJC may think they do. 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Panjandrum on April 28, 2010, 11:42:55 AM
I talked to a friend of mine who works for one of the contracted firms.  I think Currie is downplaying where they're at.  According to him, it's on.  They blew it up and are starting all over again, but it will happen.

Also, it sounds like expanded seating is past the feasibility phase and into the 'how do we get more seats in there?' phase.
wtf is a feasibility stage anyways?  if you spend 3 years stuck in feasibility, then the project probably isn't feasible.

My understanding is that they say, "This is what we want.  How much will that cost?" (I'm sure Dax will correct me on this).  That can take time.

There would be bulldozers there right now if Krause were still here, though.  They had multiple phases planned out according to my friend.  The old idea of joining BSFS and Bramlage with suites was actually being discussed as a future phase project.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Panjandrum on April 28, 2010, 11:51:11 AM
I talked to a friend of mine who works for one of the contracted firms.  I think Currie is downplaying where they're at.  According to him, it's on.  They blew it up and are starting all over again, but it will happen.

Also, it sounds like expanded seating is past the feasibility phase and into the 'how do we get more seats in there?' phase.

they really need to add more premium seats. get rid of the media or make them watch the game from a tv in the basement or something.

They need to change how they handle the student seating.  I know all of the backstory behind it, and I get the arguments that it will kill the 'soul' of Bramlage, but we need money, and it's like there's a huge gold mine sitting under section 19-20, and we can't dig because there's some sort of sacred Indian thing on it.

We need more seats, and I'm totally for that, but we need to maximize the revenue that's there.
the thought that the student section is a huge gold mine just isn't true.  where are these huge k-state supporters that for years haven't been able to get to the chairbacks (despite ponying up tons of cash to the AD) going to come from?  they don't exist and it's LOLABLE that ADJC may think they do. 

I agree to a point.  However, how much are they charging students nowadays for basketball season tickets?  ICAT?  The average season ticket holder would pay at least $100 more a seat, and because they're mid-court, you could force an Ahearn donation on top of it.  I'm not talking about generating tens of millions, but depending on where you move the students, you could increase your seat revenues and Ahearn donations by moving the students over a couple of sections.

Granted, this is all based on the assumption that there's a desirable product on the floor.  It's a totally moot point if we don't sell out season tickets, so I'm with you.  However, if we ever get to that point, moving the students is something that needs to be put on the table.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: mrfreddio55 on April 28, 2010, 12:07:34 PM
should just take the student seating out completely, imo. worthless amount of revenue coming in from those losers.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: kso_FAN on April 28, 2010, 12:19:03 PM
should just take the student seating out completely, imo. worthless amount of revenue coming in from those losers.

Just give them the top 3-5 rows all the way around the OOD. 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: pissclams on April 28, 2010, 12:46:23 PM
I talked to a friend of mine who works for one of the contracted firms.  I think Currie is downplaying where they're at.  According to him, it's on.  They blew it up and are starting all over again, but it will happen.

Also, it sounds like expanded seating is past the feasibility phase and into the 'how do we get more seats in there?' phase.

they really need to add more premium seats. get rid of the media or make them watch the game from a tv in the basement or something.

They need to change how they handle the student seating.  I know all of the backstory behind it, and I get the arguments that it will kill the 'soul' of Bramlage, but we need money, and it's like there's a huge gold mine sitting under section 19-20, and we can't dig because there's some sort of sacred Indian thing on it.

We need more seats, and I'm totally for that, but we need to maximize the revenue that's there.
the thought that the student section is a huge gold mine just isn't true.  where are these huge k-state supporters that for years haven't been able to get to the chairbacks (despite ponying up tons of cash to the AD) going to come from?  they don't exist and it's LOLABLE that ADJC may think they do. 

I agree to a point.  However, how much are they charging students nowadays for basketball season tickets?  ICAT?  The average season ticket holder would pay at least $100 more a seat, and because they're mid-court, you could force an Ahearn donation on top of it.  I'm not talking about generating tens of millions, but depending on where you move the students, you could increase your seat revenues and Ahearn donations by moving the students over a couple of sections.

Granted, this is all based on the assumption that there's a desirable product on the floor.  It's a totally moot point if we don't sell out season tickets, so I'm with you.  However, if we ever get to that point, moving the students is something that needs to be put on the table.

i think the solution is to ask for money from the people that have it (we can call them the Five-Percent Nation or Five Percenters), and not trying to nickle and dime our base into giving money that they may already be considering cutting back on spending.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 28, 2010, 12:57:13 PM
Like I said, I am pretty sure this is all being done quietly because there's just a certain perpetually pi$$ed off at everything contingent on campus who don't like anything being built unless it's for them (with the exception of a $12 million dollar leadership studies building, I am ticked off about that myself . . .  a new $12 million dollar building so Jon Wefald can have a cushy office .  . . pathetic).
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 28, 2010, 01:01:26 PM

Then again, we are talking about a school that built a brand new $12 million dollar building to support an academic minor program...


Privately financed.  No loans or backed bonds.  If you're upset, you should talk to Warren Staley. 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 28, 2010, 01:04:03 PM

Then again, we are talking about a school that built a brand new $12 million dollar building to support an academic minor program...


Privately financed.  No loans or backed bonds.  If you're upset, you should talk to Warren Staley. 

Meanwhile . . . there's about $40-$50 million dollars worth of buildings that will need to be privately financed that they can't find the money for, that will go towards supporting entities that put K-State on the map.   Leadership studies minors aren't impressing anyone.  It was just the Weefers pet project that he talked a bunch of people into contributing money towards.

Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 28, 2010, 01:13:08 PM

Meanwhile . . . there's about $40-$50 million dollars worth of buildings that will need to be privately financed that they can't find the money for, that will go towards supporting entities that put K-State on the map.   Leadership studies minors aren't impressing anyone.  It was just the Weefers pet project that he talked a bunch of people into contributing money towards.


Yeah.  Again, privately financed.  I could see your argument if we financed this building out of the general budget, necessitating cutting programs and services.  To argue that Staley's money could have been used more appropriatey, however, just doesn't make sense. 

Staley's $$$ goes where Staley wants.  Much like Jack Vanier's $$$ goes to the football team, not the Equestrian team.   

If the Engineering, Business, and Architecture Schools need upgrades, they should solicit private donations.  I just wrote a check to the Business School, for instance.  Because they called me and asked. 

Warren Staley isn't the only rich KSU alumnus out there.   

Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Mikeyis4dcats on April 28, 2010, 01:20:20 PM
Like I said, I am pretty sure this is all being done quietly because there's just a certain perpetually pi$$ed off at everything contingent on campus who don't like anything being built unless it's for them (with the exception of a $12 million dollar leadership studies building, I am ticked off about that myself . . .  a new $12 million dollar building so Jon Wefald can have a cushy office .  . . pathetic).


The Leadership Studies building was built solely through donation made by a wealthy individual whom gifted the money solely for that purpose and controlled it all, including the contractor.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: chum1 on April 28, 2010, 01:26:54 PM
Agree with dax.  Leadership studies minor is totally worthless.  Even if it was entirely the rich guy's idea, which it wasn't, they should have told him, "Thanks, but here's where we really need help."
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 28, 2010, 01:28:22 PM
change the basketball teams name from the wildcats to the kansas state leadership studies and have them practice in that new building. BAM! NEXT!
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 28, 2010, 01:41:12 PM
It was just the Weefers pet project that he talked a bunch of people into contributing money towards.


You've also got to remember that Wefald could have been contractually obligated (see in Pursuit of Perfection LLC) to build Prince a new facility in which he could preach Leadership. 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 28, 2010, 02:01:22 PM

Meanwhile . . . there's about $40-$50 million dollars worth of buildings that will need to be privately financed that they can't find the money for, that will go towards supporting entities that put K-State on the map.   Leadership studies minors aren't impressing anyone.  It was just the Weefers pet project that he talked a bunch of people into contributing money towards.


Yeah.  Again, privately financed.  I could see your argument if we financed this building out of the general budget, necessitating cutting programs and services.  To argue that Staley's money could have been used more appropriatey, however, just doesn't make sense. 

Staley's $$$ goes where Staley wants.  Much like Jack Vanier's $$$ goes to the football team, not the Equestrian team.   

If the Engineering, Business, and Architecture Schools need upgrades, they should solicit private donations.  I just wrote a check to the Business School, for instance.  Because they called me and asked. 

Warren Staley isn't the only rich KSU alumnus out there.   



You don't have to explain to me how the fund raising process works.   But apparently I need to explain to you the concept of a pet program and how the Weefer was throwing his full weight around on getting the Leadership studies building built.   
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Sugar Dick on April 28, 2010, 02:02:29 PM
change the basketball teams name from the wildcats to the kansas state leadership studies and have them practice in that new building. BAM! NEXT!

 :lol:

WTF is Leadership Studies anyways?  I remember that program starting back when I was in school (early 2000's), but didn't get it then.  Do you actually study leaders, or do you learn how to be a leader?  Can you imagine the clusterf8ck of a classroom where everyone thinks they're the leader?  Maybe it's a boat named Leader and everyone is a sailor.

I picture a bunch of people who talk too loud, and interrupt conversations with statements like, "I don't know if you know this or not, but I'm the president of [insert useless campus organization] and we're doing..."  :blah:

Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Panjandrum on April 28, 2010, 02:20:43 PM
change the basketball teams name from the wildcats to the kansas state leadership studies and have them practice in that new building. BAM! NEXT!

This is the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that will help us keep up with facilities.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Panjandrum on April 28, 2010, 02:28:26 PM
i think the solution is to ask for money from the people that have it (we can call them the Five-Percent Nation or Five Percenters), and not trying to nickle and dime our base into giving money that they may already be considering cutting back on spending.

That's how the practice facility will get built, definitely.

However, I'm not necessarily talking about nickle and diming anyone.  I'm just simply saying that we should find a way to open up mid court seats and charge an appropriate rate while we move the students to a section of the arena where their monetary contribution is more proportional.

Everything I'm saying is hypothetical.  That will most likely never happen, and there are advantages with the current situation.  However, if the program continues to ascend, and there's demand for those sections, the conversation will continue to occur.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: pissclams on April 28, 2010, 02:48:41 PM
i think the solution is to ask for money from the people that have it (we can call them the Five-Percent Nation or Five Percenters), and not trying to nickle and dime our base into giving money that they may already be considering cutting back on spending.

That's how the practice facility will get built, definitely.

However, I'm not necessarily talking about nickle and diming anyone.  I'm just simply saying that we should find a way to open up mid court seats and charge an appropriate rate while we move the students to a section of the arena where their monetary contribution is more proportional.

Everything I'm saying is hypothetical.  That will most likely never happen, and there are advantages with the current situation.  However, if the program continues to ascend, and there's demand for those sections, the conversation will continue to occur.

haven't the students been paying their portion since the thing was build through fees?
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: OregonSmock on April 28, 2010, 02:52:37 PM
Yes 33 . . . the academic policy wonks.  :ohno:

You know, I'll probably get ripped by a couple of people I know who read this forum.  But I am at the point where I'd rather see one really nice practice court built next to Bramlage on the East side , then build all new nice looking athletic administration offices and ticket offices on the West Side, and let basketball take over the entirety of the old athletic adminitration offices and just renovate and expand the dressing room areas on the lower level.  
.  




So basically, you're hoping K-State can do what KU just did to the areas in and around Allen Fieldhouse. 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Saulbadguy on April 28, 2010, 02:53:28 PM
Yes 33 . . . the academic policy wonks.  :ohno:

You know, I'll probably get ripped by a couple of people I know who read this forum.  But I am at the point where I'd rather see one really nice practice court built next to Bramlage on the East side , then build all new nice looking athletic administration offices and ticket offices on the West Side, and let basketball take over the entirety of the old athletic adminitration offices and just renovate and expand the dressing room areas on the lower level.   
.   




So basically, you're hoping K-State can do what KU just did to the areas in and around Allen Fieldhouse. 
But much, much better, obviously.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 28, 2010, 04:53:17 PM
Yes 33 . . . the academic policy wonks.  :ohno:

You know, I'll probably get ripped by a couple of people I know who read this forum.  But I am at the point where I'd rather see one really nice practice court built next to Bramlage on the East side , then build all new nice looking athletic administration offices and ticket offices on the West Side, and let basketball take over the entirety of the old athletic adminitration offices and just renovate and expand the dressing room areas on the lower level.  
.  




So basically, you're hoping K-State can do what KU just did to the areas in and around Allen Fieldhouse.  

It's just an idea. but that's not what is being proposed.   What's being proposed will rival what Kentucky, Texas, Virginia Tech, Florida and several others built.


Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Panjandrum on April 28, 2010, 05:05:16 PM
i think the solution is to ask for money from the people that have it (we can call them the Five-Percent Nation or Five Percenters), and not trying to nickle and dime our base into giving money that they may already be considering cutting back on spending.

That's how the practice facility will get built, definitely.

However, I'm not necessarily talking about nickle and diming anyone.  I'm just simply saying that we should find a way to open up mid court seats and charge an appropriate rate while we move the students to a section of the arena where their monetary contribution is more proportional.

Everything I'm saying is hypothetical.  That will most likely never happen, and there are advantages with the current situation.  However, if the program continues to ascend, and there's demand for those sections, the conversation will continue to occur.

haven't the students been paying their portion since the thing was build through fees?

That was the agreement when Bramlage was built.  Because they needed student fees to do it, I believe they were guaranteed a certain number of tickets.  However, and I need someone older or more interested in research to let me know, I don't think they specified the sections that are reserved for them.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 28, 2010, 05:14:05 PM
Yes, that was part of the deal, that the students get the sections that they're in.   However, I don't know if that deal had a "term limit" or not. 

Like has been discussed, they need to move the press completely off the East Sideline and expand Gucci Gulch.   There's no reason for the media to be occupying prime seats like that.   

Expand the scorers table to allow for additional radio TV and put the team managers behind the team benches if need be.   Put the media in the South Endzone, and also put in a retractable set of seats in the tunnel. 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: pike on April 28, 2010, 05:27:42 PM
I miss Bob Krause

Do you forget that Krause actually thought Prince was a good football coach?  Just sayin'.

You are confusing Krause (who I love) with Wefald (who I hate)

I hate both.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: I_have_purplewood on April 28, 2010, 05:27:51 PM
change the basketball teams name from the wildcats to the kansas state leadership studies and have them practice in that new building. BAM! NEXT!

 :lol:

WTF is Leadership Studies anyways?  I remember that program starting back when I was in school (early 2000's), but didn't get it then.  Do you actually study leaders, or do you learn how to be a leader?  Can you imagine the clusterf8ck of a classroom where everyone thinks they're the leader?  Maybe it's a boat named Leader and everyone is a sailor.

I picture a bunch of people who talk too loud, and interrupt conversations with statements like, "I don't know if you know this or not, but I'm the president of [insert useless campus organization] and we're doing..."  :blah:



I'd like to see this site have a leadership forum.  Could go a long way into helping make these posts better.  jmo   :dunno: (ftp://:dunno:)  And if I donate some money, please name 'the pwood leadership forum'.  tia
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 29, 2010, 10:42:43 AM

You don't have to explain to me how the fund raising process works.   But apparently I need to explain to you the concept of a pet program and how the Weefer was throwing his full weight around on getting the Leadership studies building built.   


Nah, you just need to do a better job of explaining how "Weefer's pet program" diluted funding from other campus improvements, or the basketball practice facility. 


Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 29, 2010, 11:03:58 AM
I never said it took away from the basketball program Belvis.   

And yeah, the University President lobbying big donors to contribute money to his pet program, a program that will provide him a cushy office and a $255K a year salary once he "retires" is exactly the same as fund raisers assigned by the Foundation to individual colleges/Dean's and department heads doing fund raising.   :rolleyes:

Any other reaches??
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: 06wildcat on April 29, 2010, 11:14:28 AM

You don't have to explain to me how the fund raising process works.   But apparently I need to explain to you the concept of a pet program and how the Weefer was throwing his full weight around on getting the Leadership studies building built.   


Nah, you just need to do a better job of explaining how "Weefer's pet program" diluted funding from other campus improvements, or the basketball practice facility. 




So K-State and every other regents school has an incredible backlog of maintenance issues totaling hundreds of millions of dollars ... and another building won't take away from making those improvements right? It may have been privately funded but the salaries for those who occupy the building and the ongoing maintenance are not.

It's stupid shiat like this that does hurt the university's academics far more than any athletic event every could. Instead of using the limited resources K-State has to improve what buildings and programs are already in place, we're out fundraising for a building to house a program that doesn't bring one student to campus. Sure, lots of students enroll because "Leadership Studies" is an incredibly easy way to meet your outside concentration requirements for a degree, but no one is going to come to K-State because it offers a minor in it.

I have the minor and stopped listing it on my resume after being asked to explain it for every interview. That's how Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) it is.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 29, 2010, 11:18:31 AM
I never said it took away from the basketball program Belvis.   

And yeah, the University President lobbying big donors to contribute money to his pet program, a program that will provide him a cushy office and a $255K a year salary once he "retires" is exactly the same as fund raisers assigned by the Foundation to individual colleges/Dean's and department heads doing fund raising.   :rolleyes:

Any other reaches??

Cargill dropped $1mil.  The Staley's dropped a lot more than that from their own pockets.  You're saying that this money should/could have been used for other endeavours.  End of story.  

I don't need any red herring lessons on fund raising, or Weefald's private office, or Weefald's salary.  

Simply explain how Staley's personal and corporate donations for this project were somehow mismanaged or missapropriated. If Staley essentially has an open checkbook to which Kansas State has access, then yeah, I'd say that his millions of dollars could have been better used renovating Seaton Hall or Calvin Hall.  But, you haven't convinced me that this is the case.        
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 29, 2010, 11:19:28 AM
Time to propse possible clip-art for the new facility?
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 29, 2010, 11:24:37 AM

So K-State and every other regents school has an incredible backlog of maintenance issues totaling hundreds of millions of dollars ... and another building won't take away from making those improvements right? It may have been privately funded but the salaries for those who occupy the building and the ongoing maintenance are not.


The salaries of the people occupying the building are already being paid.  But, you make a good point that the maintenance costs and upkeep are new costs. 

however, I hope little ol' Kansas State isn't too poor to build new structures for our inability to pay a f*cking janitor, though. 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 29, 2010, 11:28:36 AM
I never said it took away from the basketball program Belvis.   

And yeah, the University President lobbying big donors to contribute money to his pet program, a program that will provide him a cushy office and a $255K a year salary once he "retires" is exactly the same as fund raisers assigned by the Foundation to individual colleges/Dean's and department heads doing fund raising.   :rolleyes:

Any other reaches??

Cargill dropped $1mil.  The Staley's dropped a lot more than that from their own pockets.  You're saying that this money should/could have been used for other endeavours.  End of story.  

I don't need any red herring lessons on fund raising, or Weefald's private office, or Weefald's salary.  

Simply explain how Staley's personal and corporate donations for this project were somehow mismanaged or missapropriated. If Staley essentially has an open checkbook to which Kansas State has access, then yeah, I'd say that his millions of dollars could have been better used renovating Seaton Hall or Calvin Hall.  But, you haven't convinced me that this is the case.        

I didn't say the funds were mishandled or misappropriated . . . not once.   What I am saying is, that it was program spearheaded by the University President.  Leadership Studies has ALWAYS been one of the Weefers pet programs.   Plus how is the REALITY of Jon Wefald drawing a $255,000 a year salary based on his "contributions" to Leadership Studies a Red Herring??  The building and Jon Wefald are locked at the hip with each other.  Jon Wefald ensured that a $12 million dollar Leadership Studies building was farther up the list of priorities than facilities for key K-State programs . . . . and as such, he put his full weight behind the fund raising for it . . . again, one of his pet programs.   To say otherwise is just living in denial.  

Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 29, 2010, 11:54:52 AM

I didn't say the funds were mishandled or misappropriated . . . not once.   What I am saying is, that it was program spearheaded by the University President.  Leadership Studies has ALWAYS been one of the Weefers pet programs.   Plus how is the REALITY of Jon Wefald drawing a $255,000 a year salary based on his "contributions" to Leadership Studies a Red Herring??  The building and Jon Wefald are locked at the hip with each other.  Jon Wefald ensured that a $12 million dollar Leadership Studies building was farther up the list of priorities than facilities for key K-State programs . . . . and as such, he put his full weight behind the fund raising for it . . . again, one of his pet programs.   To say otherwise is just living in denial.  


Everything you are saying is accurate.  I don't disagree with anything you just posted. 

I do disagree, however, with your argument that financing this building through Warren Staley's personal & coporate money has hampered our fundraising for other projects.  I.e.

Meanwhile . . . there's about $40-$50 million dollars worth of buildings that will need to be privately financed that they can't find the money for

If KSU can't find money to finance other, more important projects, I have a hard time believing it is because Staley gave a lot of money for the Leadership Studies Building. 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Trim on April 29, 2010, 12:48:24 PM
FYI, I decided to not worry about the whole feasibility thing yesterday and went with the LARGE lengua quesadilla.   :gocho:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: 06wildcat on April 29, 2010, 01:03:17 PM

So K-State and every other regents school has an incredible backlog of maintenance issues totaling hundreds of millions of dollars ... and another building won't take away from making those improvements right? It may have been privately funded but the salaries for those who occupy the building and the ongoing maintenance are not.


The salaries of the people occupying the building are already being paid.  But, you make a good point that the maintenance costs and upkeep are new costs. 

however, I hope little ol' Kansas State isn't too poor to build new structures for our inability to pay a f*cking janitor, though. 

Yes, those salaries are already being paid, but why? What kind of grants are "Leadership" professors bringing in? What purpose are those professors actually serving students? In reality, Leadership Studies should be on the chopping block with the economy in the tank and reduced state funding. Instead, K-State builds a permanent home for nothing but pure waste.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Kat Kid on April 29, 2010, 01:12:53 PM
From what I hear there's not much left to "study" on the facility itself, now it's just the money part, and from what I hear Currie is playing it close to the vest . . . because as I have said there's likely going to be some haters on campus come unhinged when this is announced given the overall financial situation at K-State (and all state schools in Kansas).   They'll be convinced that they're somehow robbing academic endeavors blind to build this thing.

Then again, we are talking about a school that built a brand new $12 million dollar building to support an academic minor program, and are paying a former school pres $255K a year to "work" in that building.  





That building was built with private funding turd.  Also, Wefald's golden parachute has nothing to do with that program.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 29, 2010, 01:55:34 PM

Yes, those salaries are already being paid, but why? What kind of grants are "Leadership" professors bringing in? What purpose are those professors actually serving students? In reality, Leadership Studies should be on the chopping block with the economy in the tank and reduced state funding. Instead, K-State builds a permanent home for nothing but pure waste.


It sounds like you're arguing to cut the program completely.  Which I don't really have an opinion on either way.  However, using your criteria (won't get you a job, etc.) it seems like there are probably a hell of a lot of minors/majors taht we could cut.  i.e. conflict resolution, nonviolence studies, etc.  

With respect to the facility, however, I think it's a great, multi-functional addition to campus.  lecture hall, six classrooms, a student services center, resource library and study areas.  It will obviosuly serve more than merely leadership minor students.  

On top of that, the building is a positive improvement to campus, aesthetically and architecturally.  I think there's some value in that.  
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: steve dave on April 29, 2010, 02:07:06 PM
Everyone's posts in this thread are way too long
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: CHONGS on April 29, 2010, 02:08:05 PM
I like the new building.  It has coffee and pie.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: steve dave on April 29, 2010, 02:09:05 PM
I like the new building.  It has coffee and pie.

wait, wut  :surprised:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on April 29, 2010, 02:13:26 PM
I like the new building.  It has coffee and pie.

wait, wut  :surprised:

could that leadership studies donation have gone into a trust fund that would have provided all campus buildings with pie into perpetuity?  true failure of leadership, if so.  study that.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: CHONGS on April 29, 2010, 02:22:37 PM
I like the new building.  It has coffee and pie.

wait, wut  :surprised:

could that leadership studies donation have gone into a trust fund that would have provided all campus buildings with pie into perpetuity?  true failure of leadership, if so.  study that.
I think it could have.  Or at least funded an automated pie machine on the first floor of every building.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 29, 2010, 02:38:01 PM
Yeah, this thread was getting too "serious." 

Need some serious dumbing down. 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on April 29, 2010, 02:43:02 PM
kstate student:  "on my way to class, i'm a little early so i can enjoy a slice of free pie"
world:  "wait, wut   :surprised:"
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: CNS on April 29, 2010, 02:43:51 PM
I like the new building.  It has coffee and pie.

wait, wut  :surprised:

could that leadership studies donation have gone into a trust fund that would have provided all campus buildings with pie into perpetuity?  true failure of leadership, if so.  study that.
I think it could have.  Or at least funded an automated pie machine on the first floor of every building.

Would these pie machines be as easy to steal pie from as it is to steal canned pop from pop machines?  If so, I am all aboard.  If not, shazbot! that....who pays for pie?

Now cobbler machines are a different story.

Please no one bring some mention of sorry ass cake into this discussion.  Cake is the biggest waste of calories and candles known to man.  Cake can GTFOOMF.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on April 29, 2010, 02:46:15 PM
important job interviewer guy:  "i see you graduated from kstate.  some of our other applicants are from harvard, yale, princet...."
kstate student: "kstate has free pie."
ijig: "wait, wut  :surprised:"
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: steve dave on April 29, 2010, 02:49:23 PM
I'm curious how this pie outfit works.  You need a student id?  Limit on the amount of pie you get?  If they recognize you as guy who ate pie already once today do they make you wait until tommorow for more? 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 29, 2010, 02:52:25 PM

Yes, those salaries are already being paid, but why? What kind of grants are "Leadership" professors bringing in? What purpose are those professors actually serving students? In reality, Leadership Studies should be on the chopping block with the economy in the tank and reduced state funding. Instead, K-State builds a permanent home for nothing but pure waste.


It sounds like you're arguing to cut the program completely.  Which I don't really have an opinion on either way.  However, using your criteria (won't get you a job, etc.) it seems like there are probably a hell of a lot of minors/majors taht we could cut.  i.e. conflict resolution, nonviolence studies, etc.  

With respect to the facility, however, I think it's a great, multi-functional addition to campus.  lecture hall, six classrooms, a student services center, resource library and study areas.  It will obviosuly serve more than merely leadership minor students.  

On top of that, the building is a positive improvement to campus, aesthetically and architecturally.  I think there's some value in that.  

I never said it wasn't a nice building and I never saidi they shouldn't have built.

That being said.

I suspect the long desired 4th addition to the Engineering Complex would be an aesthically pleasing building as well, with extra classrooms, and lecture halls, and likely more computer labs.    It's also my understand the long desired 4th addition would house a state of the art computer operations center, imperative for the growth of K-State's expanding server based computer center and essential for K-State's growth as a research university.  

I suspect the long desired administrative/academic building in the Grain Science Complex would be a great addition to that end of campus, in addition, they could remodel the the spaces that Grain Science vacated and turned it over to Leadership Studies.

Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on April 29, 2010, 02:55:22 PM
I'm curious how this pie outfit works.  You need a student id?  Limit on the amount of pie you get?  If they recognize you as guy who ate pie already once today do they make you wait until tommorow for more? 

nope.  free, all-you-can-eat pie for life.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on April 29, 2010, 02:58:40 PM
kstate student, bball fan:  "enjoy your $3 popcorn, i just popped out to the bramlage pie dispenser myself."
rick daris:  "wait, wut  :surprised:"
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: CNS on April 29, 2010, 02:59:50 PM
I'm curious how this pie outfit works.  You need a student id?  Limit on the amount of pie you get?  If they recognize you as guy who ate pie already once today do they make you wait until tommorow for more? 

nope.  free, all-you-can-eat pie for life.
:surprised:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on April 29, 2010, 03:02:01 PM
kstate_pres:  "just popped out of the office for free pie.  yummy!"
other univ preses:  "wait, wut  :surprised:"
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 29, 2010, 03:10:09 PM

I suspect the long desired 4th addition to the Engineering Complex would be an aesthically pleasing building as well, with extra classrooms, and lecture halls, and likely more computer labs.    It's also my understand the long desired 4th addition would house a state of the art computer operations center, imperative for the growth of K-State's expanding server based computer center and essential for K-State's growth as a research university.  

I suspect the long desired administrative/academic building in the Grain Science Complex would be a great addition to that end of campus, in addition, they could remodel the the spaces that Grain Science vacated and turned it over to Leadership Studies.


Can't disagree.  The University should find donors other than Staley to be the lead gifts on these projects.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: CNS on April 29, 2010, 03:14:25 PM

Somewhat related to the intelligent non-pie discussion:

I heard a stat on NPR this week saying that KSU's Pres was quoted as saying that by 2014, the entire uni will be privately funded.  Said that in 2008 the uni received 42% funding from the state and that it is down to 22% this year.

I know nothing of this, but found it interested that the Pres stated that a public uni will be fully funded privately in the next few years.

Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 29, 2010, 03:25:34 PM
UPKS has been saying since Day one, that at current rates of funding, that the % of direct funding by the state as it relates to K-State's overall budget will drop off to the point that yes . . . in a few years by all matter of speaking K-State (and the Regents Schools) will be de facto "private schools" self generating almost all of their funding.

You really have to hand it to the Kansas Legislature and their funding of higher education.

Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Andy on April 30, 2010, 10:56:08 AM
UPKS has been saying since Day one, that at current rates of funding, that the % of direct funding by the state as it relates to K-State's overall budget will drop off to the point that yes . . . in a few years by all matter of speaking K-State (and the Regents Schools) will be de facto "private schools" self generating almost all of their funding.

You really have to hand it to the Kansas Legislature and their funding of higher education.

methinks all levels of education will end up this way eventually.  prob for the better.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: bakerman on April 30, 2010, 12:32:33 PM

I didn't say the funds were mishandled or misappropriated . . . not once.   What I am saying is, that it was program spearheaded by the University President.  Leadership Studies has ALWAYS been one of the Weefers pet programs.   Plus how is the REALITY of Jon Wefald drawing a $255,000 a year salary based on his "contributions" to Leadership Studies a Red Herring??  The building and Jon Wefald are locked at the hip with each other.  Jon Wefald ensured that a $12 million dollar Leadership Studies building was farther up the list of priorities than facilities for key K-State programs . . . . and as such, he put his full weight behind the fund raising for it . . . again, one of his pet programs.   To say otherwise is just living in denial.  


Everything you are saying is accurate.  I don't disagree with anything you just posted. 

I do disagree, however, with your argument that financing this building through Warren Staley's personal & coporate money has hampered our fundraising for other projects.  I.e.

Meanwhile . . . there's about $40-$50 million dollars worth of buildings that will need to be privately financed that they can't find the money for

If KSU can't find money to finance other, more important projects, I have a hard time believing it is because Staley gave a lot of money for the Leadership Studies Building. 


He's saying that this is $12mil that was donated to a program that Stanley didn't graduate in. Wefald should of suggested that he donate that money to the program that Stanley got his degree in instead of creating an un-needed building for something so unimportant. That is where Wefald failed and Stanley's $12 mil going to leadership studies has hurt other programs' fundraising efforts.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: bakerman on April 30, 2010, 12:35:23 PM
I like the new building.  It has coffee and pie.

wait, wut  :surprised:

could that leadership studies donation have gone into a trust fund that would have provided all campus buildings with pie into perpetuity?  true failure of leadership, if so.  study that.


It's right across the street from the Bakery Science lab. Pie is readily available there every day. This is a moot point.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: steve dave on April 30, 2010, 12:52:36 PM
I like the new building.  It has coffee and pie.

wait, wut  :surprised:

could that leadership studies donation have gone into a trust fund that would have provided all campus buildings with pie into perpetuity?  true failure of leadership, if so.  study that.


It's right across the street from the Bakery Science lab. Pie is readily available there every day. This is a moot point.

wait, wut  :surprised:

Is Manhattan, KS some pie Shangri-La?!?
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Brock Landers on April 30, 2010, 01:32:16 PM
$12 million sure does buy a lot of pie
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: WillieWatanabe on April 30, 2010, 11:02:16 PM
I like the new building.  It has coffee and pie.

wait, wut  :surprised:

could that leadership studies donation have gone into a trust fund that would have provided all campus buildings with pie into perpetuity?  true failure of leadership, if so.  study that.


It's right across the street from the Bakery Science lab. Pie is readily available there every day. This is a moot point.

wait, wut  :surprised:

Is Manhattan, KS some pie Shangri-La?!?

pffttt, dunno why this made me laugh.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Kat Kid on May 01, 2010, 08:25:38 AM

So K-State and every other regents school has an incredible backlog of maintenance issues totaling hundreds of millions of dollars ... and another building won't take away from making those improvements right? It may have been privately funded but the salaries for those who occupy the building and the ongoing maintenance are not.


The salaries of the people occupying the building are already being paid.  But, you make a good point that the maintenance costs and upkeep are new costs. 

however, I hope little ol' Kansas State isn't too poor to build new structures for our inability to pay a f*cking janitor, though. 

Yes, those salaries are already being paid, but why? What kind of grants are "Leadership" professors bringing in? What purpose are those professors actually serving students? In reality, Leadership Studies should be on the chopping block with the economy in the tank and reduced state funding. Instead, K-State builds a permanent home for nothing but pure waste.

Because if there's one thing a public university should be concerned about it is the bottom line.  Jesus Christ, where the hell are the hippies supposed to go 06wildcat?  If we can't go to higher education, then where?
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Panjandrum on May 01, 2010, 11:23:39 AM
UPKS has been saying since Day one, that at current rates of funding, that the % of direct funding by the state as it relates to K-State's overall budget will drop off to the point that yes . . . in a few years by all matter of speaking K-State (and the Regents Schools) will be de facto "private schools" self generating almost all of their funding.

You really have to hand it to the Kansas Legislature and their funding of higher education.



One of these days, my wife and I plan on moving back to Kansas, but at this rate, I may stay in Missouri.

They may get to go to a Big Ten school at that point.   :excited:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: GoodForAnother on May 02, 2010, 03:19:55 AM

Yes, those salaries are already being paid, but why? What kind of grants are "Leadership" professors bringing in? What purpose are those professors actually serving students? In reality, Leadership Studies should be on the chopping block with the economy in the tank and reduced state funding. Instead, K-State builds a permanent home for nothing but pure waste.


It sounds like you're arguing to cut the program completely.  Which I don't really have an opinion on either way.  However, using your criteria (won't get you a job, etc.) it seems like there are probably a hell of a lot of minors/majors taht we could cut.  i.e. conflict resolution, nonviolence studies, etc.  

With respect to the facility, however, I think it's a great, multi-functional addition to campus.  lecture hall, six classrooms, a student services center, resource library and study areas.  It will obviosuly serve more than merely leadership minor students.  

On top of that, the building is a positive improvement to campus, aesthetically and architecturally.  I think there's some value in that.  

I never said it wasn't a nice building and I never saidi they shouldn't have built.

That being said.

I suspect the long desired 4th addition to the Engineering Complex would be an aesthically pleasing building as well, with extra classrooms, and lecture halls, and likely more computer labs.    It's also my understand the long desired 4th addition would house a state of the art computer operations center, imperative for the growth of K-State's expanding server based computer center and essential for K-State's growth as a research university.  

I suspect the long desired administrative/academic building in the Grain Science Complex would be a great addition to that end of campus, in addition, they could remodel the the spaces that Grain Science vacated and turned it over to Leadership Studies.



lmao @ "server based computer center"

you just made that up
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 02, 2010, 10:38:43 AM
yeah I did, I guess Beowulf's are more like clusters.

Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Havs on May 02, 2010, 10:30:58 PM
Here is a video of Iowa State's Practice Facility, completed in 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgoGHCn5G60
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Trim on May 02, 2010, 10:33:28 PM
Here is a video of Iowa State's Practice Facility, completed in 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgoGHCn5G60

Needs more butter.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: chum1 on May 02, 2010, 10:38:15 PM
Really, no one should spend more than a few hundred thousand for something like that. 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Havs on May 02, 2010, 10:40:42 PM
Really, no one should spend more than a few hundred thousand for something like that. 

Dicky V likes it. Why he was in Ames baffles me, given our lack of bball success, but regardless. I think the Athletic Department only paid for 25% of the building, so win-win for ISU!
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on May 02, 2010, 11:14:43 PM

He's saying that this is $12mil that was donated to a program that Stanley didn't graduate in. Wefald should of suggested that he donate that money to the program that Stanley got his degree in instead of creating an un-needed building for something so unimportant. That is where Wefald failed and Stanley's $12 mil going to leadership studies has hurt other programs' fundraising efforts.


Thanks for the input. 

His name is Staley.  Warren Staley.  No "n." 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: chum1 on May 02, 2010, 11:36:38 PM
$23,500.00

http://metalbuildingdepot.com/specials/default.aspx (http://metalbuildingdepot.com/specials/default.aspx)
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Trim on May 02, 2010, 11:38:51 PM
$23,500.00

http://metalbuildingdepot.com/specials/default.aspx (http://metalbuildingdepot.com/specials/default.aspx)

That seems incredibly feasible. 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: wabash909 on May 03, 2010, 06:50:39 AM
Here is a video of Iowa State's Practice Facility, completed in 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgoGHCn5G60

What a piece of garbage.  No wonder all the players and coaches left.


Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2010, 07:34:00 AM
$23,500.00

http://metalbuildingdepot.com/specials/default.aspx (http://metalbuildingdepot.com/specials/default.aspx)

That seems incredibly feasible.  

The building I'm sitting in is brand new, has six floors, 250,000 square feet, a parking garage, a gym, a cafeteria, is "green/eco-friendly," and facilitates about a thousand employees.  It was $45 million.  

A practice facility is unquestionably feasible.  It's the feasibility of the act of flushing $20 million down the toilet that is in question.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: CNS on May 03, 2010, 09:25:13 AM
Really, no one should spend more than a few hundred thousand for something like that. 

Dicky V likes it. Why he was in Ames baffles me, given our lack of bball success, but regardless. I think the Athletic Department only paid for 25% of the building, so win-win for ISU!

Dicky V also jumped a plane and came to Manhattan when Wooly was introduced as our coach.  He came out in his Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) track suit to tell us that he thought Manhattan was Awesome with a Capital A, and that he was real excited about our future.....with Wooly.

I wouldn't get any hopes up about anything based on Dicky V. 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 03, 2010, 09:26:04 AM
Chum it is not outside of the realm of possibility that some of that $20 million might be used for other things inside Bramlage, sometimes little side projects come out of bigger jobs.

 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2010, 09:34:54 AM
Chum it is not outside of the realm of possibility that some of that $20 million might be used for other things inside Bramlage, sometimes little side projects come out of bigger jobs.

It will be wasted money just the same.  If these people weren't horrible at their jobs, they wouldn't be at Kansas State.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on May 03, 2010, 09:35:30 AM
The building I'm sitting in is brand new, has six floors, 250,000 square feet, a parking garage, a gym, a cafeteria, is "green/eco-friendly," and facilitates about a thousand employees.  It was $45 million.  

A practice facility is unquestionably feasible.  It's the feasibility of the act of flushing $20 million down the toilet that is in question.

that sounds like a good building, chum.  how much will you take for it?  keep in mind that the building is used (even if technically brand new).  and it's for kstate.  tax deductible too.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2010, 09:39:18 AM
How about a Detroit campus?

http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2009/11/17/news/doc4b02afb646115023862106.txt (http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2009/11/17/news/doc4b02afb646115023862106.txt)
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 03, 2010, 09:44:12 AM
Just curious, why do you think it will be wasted money chum??

Trust me, I am fully in the "K-State will always F up a good thing" camp, so I am just curious why you think that in this case.

Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on May 03, 2010, 09:50:14 AM
How about a Detroit campus?

http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2009/11/17/news/doc4b02afb646115023862106.txt (http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2009/11/17/news/doc4b02afb646115023862106.txt)

at that price, kstate could probably afford to set up a fund to provide perpetual pies for the users of the structure.  naturally, i'm a little disappointed in the lack of leadership displayed by the kstate a.d. on this opportunity.  a case study for sure.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on May 03, 2010, 09:51:05 AM
Yeah, I'm curious to see what $20 million buys us as well.  

Given that steel prices have tanked and contractors are literally begging for work, $20mil could damn near buy us two practice facilities (at pre-recession cost).  

I hope some of this $$$ goes to a new floor in the OOD, among other small projects.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2010, 09:57:39 AM
Just curious, why do you think it will be wasted money chum??

Trust me, I am fully in the "K-State will always F up a good thing" camp, so I am just curious why you think that in this case.

We should have nice facilities.  They can even look flashy and impressive.  At the same time, we shouldn't try to keep up with the top spenders.  We are who we are.  It may make the community feel like they are big time, but no one on the outside is fooled by the middle class guy in the luxury car.  Everyone knows he's not a rich guy.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on May 03, 2010, 10:18:20 AM

We should have nice facilities.  They can even look flashy and impressive.  At the same time, we shouldn't try to keep up with the top spenders. 


 :confused:

Every team in the Big XII has a practice facility, or is in the process of building one.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2010, 10:25:08 AM
Every team in the Big XII has a practice facility, or is in the process of building one.

The issue is the price tag. 

Big 12?  Forget it.  What are Mountain West schools doing?
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 03, 2010, 10:46:21 AM
Just curious, why do you think it will be wasted money chum??

Trust me, I am fully in the "K-State will always F up a good thing" camp, so I am just curious why you think that in this case.

We should have nice facilities.  They can even look flashy and impressive.  At the same time, we shouldn't try to keep up with the top spenders.  We are who we are.  It may make the community feel like they are big time, but no one on the outside is fooled by the middle class guy in the luxury car.  Everyone knows he's not a rich guy.

I don't disagree.   However, if you follow these things like I have over the last decade, to be honest a $20 million dollar project and or a series of smaller projects totaling between $20 to $30 million every few years should be right in the wheel house of a school like K-State.   What was always a little "pie in the sky" to me was the thought of doing things like adding a 2nd stadium club and more suites and things like that, having a "waiting list" is one thing, having people with check book in hand is another.

   
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2010, 11:17:50 AM
I don't disagree.   However, if you follow these things like I have over the last decade, to be honest a $20 million dollar project and or a series of smaller projects totaling between $20 to $30 million every few years should be right in the wheel house of a school like K-State.  

I haven't followed these things like you have for even a second.  But how much do schools like K-State spend on basketball practice facilities?  Is it probably too much?  And how much of the $20 million installment will we probably spend on a basketball practice facility?  Is it possibly way too much?
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2010, 11:22:34 AM
During the tournament, I repeatedly heard about how Xavier has first class facilities and flies in a charted jet, and on and on about how they do everything first class just like any of the top programs.  But at the end of the day, they're still Xavier, you know?
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on May 03, 2010, 11:27:46 AM
During the tournament, I repeatedly heard about how Xavier has first class facilities and flies in a charted jet, and on and on about how they do everything first class just like any of the top programs.  But at the end of the day, they're still Xavier, you know?

jfc, chum.  it's not about not being xavier.  even if we're still xavier, we'll be xavier with a practice facility.  it's like valet parking.  you think those guys give a crap if the car is paid off, or if the owner is rich?  of course not, jfc.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: CNS on May 03, 2010, 11:27:59 AM
$20M can get you a pretty decent facility.  Nothing extraordinarily eye popping.  Nothing that will win recruits who are interested in amazing facilities.

It will get you a good sized building that can hold 3 courts, a decent-to-nice locker room, a decent film room, and a few OK offices.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Trim on May 03, 2010, 11:29:34 AM
Maybe we should just move back to Ahearn and let the OOD be the practice facility.  Feasible?
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: steve dave on May 03, 2010, 11:29:48 AM
$20M can get you a pretty decent facility.  Nothing extraordinarily eye popping.  Nothing that will win recruits who are interested in amazing facilities.

It will get you a good sized building that can hold 3 courts, a decent-to-nice locker room, a decent film room, and a few OK offices.


Why would we ever need 3 courts?  Kind of low CBBPracticeIQ here but it doesn't seem like you would ever need that much room....especially now that we can't host AAU events.  
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on May 03, 2010, 11:30:25 AM
$20M can get you a pretty decent facility.  Nothing extraordinarily eye popping.  Nothing that will win recruits who are interested in amazing facilities.

It will get you a good sized building that can hold 3 courts, a decent-to-nice locker room, a decent film room, and a few OK offices.

hmm.  not good enough.  what can they get for $45 million.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on May 03, 2010, 11:31:10 AM
During the tournament, I repeatedly heard about how Xavier has first class facilities and flies in a charted jet, and on and on about how they do everything first class just like any of the top programs.  But at the end of the day, they're still Xavier, you know?

Yeah, sucks to be Xavier, ya know?  Two Elite 8s in the last 5 years.  NCAA tournament staple.  

With respect to the facility, remember that it will include locker rooms, weight rooms, coaches and administrative staff offices, film rooms, recruiting lounge, medical/training rooms, and basketball courts.  And, this facility serves the needs of the men's and women's programs.  

20 mil might be a bit steep.  But, it's being paid for by private donations.  WTF do you care about it's necessity?  I'll bet you weren't solicited for a donation.      
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: CNS on May 03, 2010, 11:31:55 AM
$20M can get you a pretty decent facility.  Nothing extraordinarily eye popping.  Nothing that will win recruits who are interested in amazing facilities.

It will get you a good sized building that can hold 3 courts, a decent-to-nice locker room, a decent film room, and a few OK offices.


Why would we ever need 3 courts?  Kind of low CBBPracticeIQ here but it doesn't seem like you would ever need that much room....especially now that we can't host AAU events.  

Admittedly, I don't know why that much room is needed, but I remember it being mentioned in the past as a number of courts that they were kicking around having.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: CNS on May 03, 2010, 11:35:30 AM
$20M can get you a pretty decent facility.  Nothing extraordinarily eye popping.  Nothing that will win recruits who are interested in amazing facilities.

It will get you a good sized building that can hold 3 courts, a decent-to-nice locker room, a decent film room, and a few OK offices.

hmm.  not good enough.  what can they get for $45 million.

About 1.25 x more than I mentioned above.   :dunno:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 03, 2010, 11:36:40 AM
I don't disagree.   However, if you follow these things like I have over the last decade, to be honest a $20 million dollar project and or a series of smaller projects totaling between $20 to $30 million every few years should be right in the wheel house of a school like K-State.  

I haven't followed these things like you have for even a second.  But how much do schools like K-State spend on basketball practice facilities?  Is it probably too much?  And how much of the $20 million installment will we probably spend on a basketball practice facility?  Is it possibly way too much?

Well if they spend all $20 million on only the basketball practice faciliity, it will be one of the biggest expenditures for a facility like that of any NCAA D1 school.   However . . . call it a hunch, but with construction pricing the way it is, maybe a few million will go towards other things.  

But right now, we're all just guessing, and saying what's "too much" is really dependent on who you ask.  

CNS . . . come on man, this is what $21 million bought at Virginia Tech.

http://www.hokiesports.com/facilities/bpf.html

Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: CNS on May 03, 2010, 11:41:31 AM
I don't disagree.   However, if you follow these things like I have over the last decade, to be honest a $20 million dollar project and or a series of smaller projects totaling between $20 to $30 million every few years should be right in the wheel house of a school like K-State.  

I haven't followed these things like you have for even a second.  But how much do schools like K-State spend on basketball practice facilities?  Is it probably too much?  And how much of the $20 million installment will we probably spend on a basketball practice facility?  Is it possibly way too much?

Well if they spend all $20 million on only the basketball practice faciliity, it will be one of the biggest expenditures for a facility like that of any NCAA D1 school.   However . . . call it a hunch, but with construction pricing the way it is, maybe a few million will go towards other things.  

But right now, we're all just guessing, and saying what's "too much" is really dependent on who you ask.  

CNS . . . come on man, this is what $21 million bought at Virginia Tech.

http://www.hokiesports.com/facilities/bpf.html



Other than the weight room and training area, that is basically what I described. 

Note: I said 3 courts, where the hokie's only had 2.

I also left out, evidently, that the building I described would include bathrooms for the coaches(my bad).

One other note: It is not uncommon for the cost of certain equipment(furniture, weights, and gym machines) to be tracked under a different soft cost budget.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on May 03, 2010, 11:42:31 AM
About 1.25 x more than I mentioned above.   :dunno:

eff it then, that still sucks.  how much for eye-popping?
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: CNS on May 03, 2010, 11:44:53 AM
About 1.25 x more than I mentioned above.   :dunno:

shazbot! it then, that still sucks.  how much for eye-popping?

Tough question.

Would prolly have to do a study to determine cost and feasibility. 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on May 03, 2010, 11:47:33 AM
$20M can get you a pretty decent facility.  Nothing extraordinarily eye popping.  Nothing that will win recruits who are interested in amazing facilities.


Wrong. 

$20mil is top of the line.  The facility will be superior to KU's and UT's.  Prob a step below Kentucky. 

Especially in this economy.  $20mil is going to buy a LOT of building. 

Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on May 03, 2010, 11:49:58 AM
Wrong. 

 :ksu:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: CNS on May 03, 2010, 11:55:59 AM
$20M can get you a pretty decent facility.  Nothing extraordinarily eye popping.  Nothing that will win recruits who are interested in amazing facilities.


Wrong. 

$20mil is top of the line.  The facility will be superior to KU's and UT's.  Prob a step below Kentucky. 

Especially in this economy.  $20mil is going to buy a LOT of building. 



3 courts is a lot of building

I don't know what KU's or UT's practice facilities look like.

I have built several YMCA's, which are obviously not NCAA facilities, but still have BB courts, weight rooms, limited training areas, etc.

I have also built office building projects with high-end video conf rooms.

Neither are exactly like what the practice facility will be, but both will have a strong link in the type of components that will make up the building.

Mine was just a guess from having done these kinds of projects and making assumptions on what a NCAA practice facility will have.

Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: doom on May 03, 2010, 11:57:09 AM
$20M can get you a pretty decent facility.  Nothing extraordinarily eye popping.  Nothing that will win recruits who are interested in amazing facilities.

It will get you a good sized building that can hold 3 courts, a decent-to-nice locker room, a decent film room, and a few OK offices.

hmm.  not good enough.  what can they get for $45 million.

This.  But purple and with basketball courts inside. 
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.starstore.com%2Facatalog%2FCastle_Grayskull.jpg&hash=8a80e9d295671c8037457ca147fe3fb45eb801eb)

Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2010, 12:00:34 PM
During the tournament, I repeatedly heard about how Xavier has first class facilities and flies in a charted jet, and on and on about how they do everything first class just like any of the top programs.  But at the end of the day, they're still Xavier, you know?

jfc, chum.  it's not about not being xavier.  even if we're still xavier, we'll be xavier with a practice facility.  it's like valet parking.  you think those guys give a crap if the car is paid off, or if the owner is rich?  of course not, jfc.

That was an argument not to spend anywhere near $20 million.  Not an argument not to build a practice facility.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on May 03, 2010, 12:02:44 PM
That was an argument not to spend anywhere near $20 million.  Not an argument not to build a practice facility.

mine was an argument to spend as much money as they can get their hands on.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: chum1 on May 03, 2010, 12:07:59 PM
That was an argument not to spend anywhere near $20 million.  Not an argument not to build a practice facility.

mine was an argument to spend as much money as they can get their hands on.

They don't know how much something costs unless it has a name brand on it.  Even then, things are tricky.  How many do you think would spot a fake Rolex? 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on May 03, 2010, 12:10:15 PM
name brand on it.  Even then, things are tricky.  How many do you think would spot a fake Rolex? 

if we can get 20 fake rolexes for the price of one real one, then i'm definitely in favor of that.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Kat Kid on May 03, 2010, 12:59:53 PM
pretty sure William Staley won't let this happen because of the new leadership studies building.  he was all like, "no one can build anything for 5 years after I build my xanadu!"  At least I think that's what dax was saying.   :dunno:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on May 03, 2010, 01:11:08 PM

3 courts is a lot of building


What's your fixation with 3 courts?  Curry has publicly stated that they are aiming for 2 courts...
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: CNS on May 03, 2010, 01:18:23 PM

3 courts is a lot of building


What's your fixation with 3 courts?  Curry has publicly stated that they are aiming for 2 courts...

No fixation, just saying that what I originally described(3 courts) is a decent amt of building.  As you can see in my other post, I don't know if that is what is needed or not, but only remember hearing that number thrown around in previous info on the subject.

I couldn't care less what the ultimate # of courts are.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Belvis Noland on May 03, 2010, 01:42:36 PM

No fixation, just saying that what I originally described(3 courts) is a decent amt of building.  As you can see in my other post, I don't know if that is what is needed or not, but only remember hearing that number thrown around in previous info on the subject.


Mmmmkay..  It will only have two courts; not three.  And it's priced comparably to the best practice facilities built pre-recession. 
 
There you have it. 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: sys on May 03, 2010, 01:54:01 PM
if martin wants three courts, he gets three courts.  end of story, no matter what staley thinks about it.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: bonercat on May 03, 2010, 02:00:03 PM
I think K-State should be more "edgy" and "rough" with a practice facility. Meaning, we install an outdoor pavement facility with chainlink nets and graffiti on the backboard. That'll make the 5-stars transition better from the Bronx to the Apple
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Havs on May 03, 2010, 03:49:03 PM
I think K-State should be more "edgy" and "rough" with a practice facility. Meaning, we install an outdoor pavement facility with chainlink nets and graffiti on the backboard. That'll make the 5-stars transition better from the Bronx to the Apple

I'm sure the LHC Bill Snyder's of the world would just love that.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: steve dave on May 03, 2010, 07:10:01 PM
I think K-State should be more "edgy" and "rough" with a practice facility. Meaning, we install an outdoor pavement facility with chainlink nets and graffiti on the backboard. That'll make the 5-stars transition better from the Bronx to the Apple

Quit being a shitty poster please
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Pete on May 03, 2010, 07:18:44 PM
pretty sure William Staley won't let this happen because of the new leadership studies building.  he was all like, "no one can build anything for 5 years after I build my xanadu!"  At least I think that's what dax was saying.   :dunno:

I am very late to this thread, but who the eff requests something like that, or grants a request like that?  Jesus, I wish I had gone to Texas.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: The42Yardstick on May 03, 2010, 08:32:19 PM
MORE LIKE LAME-O 4000 AMIRITE?!?!?!

/shows self out
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: bonercat on May 04, 2010, 03:18:16 PM
Quit being a shitty poster please

 :nono:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Andy on May 05, 2010, 02:11:27 PM
$20M can get you a pretty decent facility.  Nothing extraordinarily eye popping.  Nothing that will win recruits who are interested in amazing facilities.

It will get you a good sized building that can hold 3 courts, a decent-to-nice locker room, a decent film room, and a few OK offices.

hmm.  not good enough.  what can they get for $45 million.

This.  But purple and with basketball courts inside. 
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.starstore.com%2Facatalog%2FCastle_Grayskull.jpg&hash=8a80e9d295671c8037457ca147fe3fb45eb801eb)



dam just redo nichols gym!
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Havs on May 06, 2010, 10:34:44 AM
Couldn't you convert Ahearn into a practice facility?? Make it with modern amenities with an added a bit of nostalgia and history.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: mcmwcat on May 06, 2010, 10:40:52 AM
Couldn't you convert Ahearn into a practice facility??

no
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: chum1 on May 06, 2010, 10:41:05 AM
There's already a practice facility in Ahearn.  And it has three courts!  (I think!)
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on May 06, 2010, 10:53:46 AM
thoughts on draining the two big natatorium pools and using them?  :dunno:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 06, 2010, 10:58:01 AM
thoughts on draining the two big natatorium pools and using them?  :dunno:

Those pools play an important role in the MWF 8:30 weight training PE elective class. 
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: GoodForAnother on May 06, 2010, 11:12:03 AM
they actually already have a basketball goal in one of the pools at the nat.  we used to go there and play water basketball.  could be an edge for our team...if they can play underwater, they can play anywhere.

just spitballing here.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: bonercat on May 06, 2010, 11:23:06 AM
There's already a practice facility in Ahearn.  And it has three courts!  (I think!)

Yes, it has 3 or 4 courts but I believe that's where our various club sports (men's volleyball for instance) tend to hold their practices. Not sure if that's also where our women's volleyball team practices when the tennis team/track and field are using the main area of the facility in the winter.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Andy on May 06, 2010, 01:41:52 PM
clearly the way to go is to make the bram the practice facility and redo ahearn.   :D
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: CNS on May 06, 2010, 03:09:33 PM
There's already a practice facility in Ahearn.  And it has three courts!  (I think!)

 :love:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on May 06, 2010, 06:39:38 PM
clearly the way to go is to make the bram the practice facility and redo ahearn.   :D

great emoticon usage.
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 06, 2010, 07:01:50 PM
they actually already have a basketball goal in one of the pools at the nat.  we used to go there and play water basketball.  could be an edge for our team...if they can play underwater, they can play anywhere.

just spitballing here.

OMG, I just pictured Curtis showing up for practice in flippers and a snorkel mask...can you picture that!?  so funny  :lol:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: Trim on August 20, 2012, 08:35:22 PM
:thumbs:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: WillieWatanabe on August 21, 2012, 06:33:01 AM
:dunno:
Title: Re: Feasibility
Post by: pissclams on August 21, 2012, 07:31:11 AM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcurtiskitchen.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2Fmartin-sc-e1332878765882.jpg&hash=674daedb522de995d8afa77da8e73e01ddad036d)