- Nov 19, 2014
- 9,223
- 14,950
Infuriating graphic tweeted out by the UF UAA on facilities
- Thread starter Dunder
- Start date
- Aug 4, 2014
- 232
- 271
It's marketing for them. Are you more likely to donate knowing that your donations are needed to get the football facilities or would you be more likely to donate if you knew your donations were needed to fund non-revenue generating sport facilities?
- Nov 9, 2015
- 7,401
- 4,168
It is very simple, like any organization they only want to have so much debt (I mean any well run one). So if you want to spend money you have to raise money.
And I really doubt that all the spending will result in more revenue like a normal business. It should result in more football success which will get some money, but not like say Amazon.
- Oct 8, 2017
- 2,165
- 5,572
In Will Sammons' recent interview with Foley, oops, Stricklin, the current AD basically says it is "hopeful" we will breach ground by summer 2020 on the Football facility. The "hopeful" is limited by their ability to further squeeze donors based on the original graphic to start this thread. Again, WHERE IS THE TV MONEY BEING SPENT AND WHY CAN'T WE FINANCE AGAINST IT LIKE EVERY OTHER $100+ MILLION REVENUE ENTERPRISE IN EXISTENCE?
Last, lest we forget the focus of our athletic department and the relative importance of other sports, don't be confused by the term "football only" facility. Here is Stricklin describing the project in that interview:
One thing that is really unique — and I got to give Dan credit for this because a lot of these buildings are football-only — is that while there will be a lot of football-specific spaces in the building, when you walk in at the very beginning, there is going to be a dining hall for all of our student-athletes. There is going to be a student-athlete recreation center just for our student-athletes that all of our sports can utilize for recruiting or just for anything for athletes during the day.
Conceptually, and if our facility was built 10 years ago, I don't mind this. But, at this point, it is just even more of the AD's office poking their finger in the eye of those they ask (and have previously asked) to donate for the "football" facility. Notice he doesn't say this was Mullen's idea. It sounds more like he had to twist Mullen's arm and is now trying to publicly applaud him for giving in on this idea. Obviously I don't know, but if you go our of your way to compliment the coach on this point, it seems you'd specifically point out if it was his idea, rather than his acceptance of the idea.
Last, lest we forget the focus of our athletic department and the relative importance of other sports, don't be confused by the term "football only" facility. Here is Stricklin describing the project in that interview:
One thing that is really unique — and I got to give Dan credit for this because a lot of these buildings are football-only — is that while there will be a lot of football-specific spaces in the building, when you walk in at the very beginning, there is going to be a dining hall for all of our student-athletes. There is going to be a student-athlete recreation center just for our student-athletes that all of our sports can utilize for recruiting or just for anything for athletes during the day.
Conceptually, and if our facility was built 10 years ago, I don't mind this. But, at this point, it is just even more of the AD's office poking their finger in the eye of those they ask (and have previously asked) to donate for the "football" facility. Notice he doesn't say this was Mullen's idea. It sounds more like he had to twist Mullen's arm and is now trying to publicly applaud him for giving in on this idea. Obviously I don't know, but if you go our of your way to compliment the coach on this point, it seems you'd specifically point out if it was his idea, rather than his acceptance of the idea.
- Jun 10, 2014
- 4,187
- 6,312
Founding Member
All I know is if we don't have a football only putt putt course and and a football only water park this will be a giant fail. A football only monorail system to classes would also be nice and cut down on scooter accidents.
- Oct 8, 2017
- 2,165
- 5,572
This is such nonsense. Yes, it is true that if I take my kids to the b-/c+ level amusement park in Valdosta, Ga, they will have a great time and love it. Just like if we stay in a Holiday Inn with a pool, they will have fun in the pool.
But, if given the choice to pick, they are picking Disney World, not Valdosta World, and they are choosing to stay in the Grand Floridian, have dinner with Mickey, and hop on the "monorail" you reference right from the lobby.
This preference for nicer, more convenient things doesn't change throughout life. You can be happy and successful without access to the best things in life. But, it is ignorant to suggest that most people "choose" to not have the best things when those are available. It is far more often an issue of access. The best players have access to the best facilities (if they go somewhere other than Florida) Our housing, training facilities, and off-time environment for football players is substandard and it shows in our results. My point, is our AD's office still seems to not care much about it.
Swinney wasn't an amazing recruiter. Now he offers Disney World to his players, and he is.
- Oct 15, 2018
- 6,084
- 16,194
Maybe I read the sarcasm wrong in gator1946 posts, but it seems more likely that you did. I think he is scoffing at the idea that everything has to be football only vs having some multisport use out of the facility. I like the idea of letting the other sports piggy back off the football facility for stuff like dining facility and rec area ... instead of the other sports getting ahead of the line like that stupid baseball complex.
- Jun 10, 2014
- 4,187
- 6,312
Founding Member
For the most part you're right. But it's a slight mix. For the most part you hit it. We have to be smart about the way we spend the money. I want to get the most football bang for the buck while satisfying the administration's headlong rush to upgrade other sports support facilities. We can bitch all we want but that's their priorities.
Second just a word to be careful, I am not for matching facility for facility or amenity for amenity, those other programs who are going to spend themselves into a hole. TV contracts are not guaranteed to go on at the rate they are now, and attendance is not going to plug the gap. If we had a sugar daddy like A&M or Oregon what the Hell. Spend their money. Otherwise be reasonably smart.
And finally, for the most part there's no choice now. But as an old fart, and one who's experienced what happens to kids at the top end of show biz. Kids without their heads screwed on straight are ruined by showbiz. The same applies to college athletes. Why should college football provide players with the Taj Mahal and then dump them into the real world with a sense of entitlement soon to be replaced by shock. I know...I know. If you want to be in the top ten there's no choice. Is it good for the kids or the college game in the long run. I don't think so.
You want to change the rules and pay them more, fine. Figure out how to do it. Going over the top is a piss poor replacement for that plan.
- Jun 19, 2014
- 21,429
- 47,918
Founding Member
- Oct 8, 2017
- 2,165
- 5,572
So, short version, you wouldn't trade spoiling kids under the currently allowed rules for a winning program because it may be unhealthy for those college athletes that don't realize the benefits are temporary. OK. I just disagree and would like to do more than "get the most football bang for the buck" or match other's facilities. I'd like us to exceed what others are doing. Perhaps more focus on high end technology training than putt-putt, though.
But, since its not entertaining to write, "OK. I just disagree", I'll conclude with noting that you're a senile old fart!
- Jun 10, 2014
- 4,187
- 6,312
Founding Member
Fortunately for you you have not lived as long as I have. Fortunately for me I have lived a long time, seen a lot, and am told by many of the young people that work for me that I'm not senile. Of course that's when I stroke them a check. I am, however, an old fart.
Screw off and I mean that it in the kindest way possible.
- Aug 1, 2018
- 2,906
- 2,975
So if I read this correctly (probably not), it looks like it's saying thanks for your donations. We've already spent them on non-revenue sports even though we know that isn't what you donated for. Now we're asking for more, so trust us, we'll actually spend it on Football this time. Honest!
Who among us cannot figure this out? How many people donating those millions thought it would benefit football first? My guess is most. It's outrageous and yes, I can see why many now have rethought their position that Foley was a great AD.
It also seems likely that Nay'Quan Wright's recent tweet might be that players disappointed to find out we don't have money for the upgrades. Is there any indication the new facilities are on hold until donations help make it affordable?
- Jun 5, 2014
- 37,012
- 98,002
Founding Member
- Nov 1, 2017
- 3,253
- 7,311
I don't mind the tweets , I don't have to read them. Its the dang calls at 8:30 at night from their money hounds. Maybe if I pony up they will take my name off the call list.
- Dec 4, 2016
- 6,063
- 6,875
I’m sure if these things become a necessity, we’ll get them 10 years after every one else. Lol
- Jun 9, 2014
- 78,387
- 110,685
Founding Member
Time to remove them.
You sound like professor cat lady.
We give 140 mil a year REGARDLESS. We give top 3 amount of money, we just don't get top 100 facilities.
We DO pay them already.
We pay "full cost of attendance stipends". The lowest in the SEC (except Vandy) of course.
Why do you think it would change if we were allowed to pay them?
We don't pay our coaches the going rate so why would we pay the players?
- Jun 9, 2014
- 78,387
- 110,685
Founding Member
- Jun 9, 2014
- 78,387
- 110,685
Founding Member
