I’m not sure what to say about this that isn’t already covered by the included quote from an opponent to the plan: “This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen.”
Faced with declining state funding, [Colorado State University] is raising money to build a $246 million, 40,000-seat football stadium on its Fort Collins campus. University President Tony Frank says the new facility will help build a winning football team while advancing one of the school’s highest priorities: attracting more out-of-state students paying higher tuition.
You can sort of understand why CSU is desparate: Its state funding has been slashed in recent years, and it now only gets 10% of its budget from the state, so bringing in higher-paying students sounds like a solution. Frank notes that the University of Oregon built a whole bunch of new athletic facilities and doubled its share of nonresident students — though neither he nor the Wall Street Journal article attempts to determine if that’s the main reason, or even whether the increased tuition payments at Oregon have been enough to pay off the athletic facilities (which in any case at Oregon have mostly been funded by donations from Nike founder Phil Knight).
Then there’s this little problem:
No academic research exists to support the notion that a new stadium helps a college football team win, experts say. Nor will it necessarily attract more fans. The universities of Akron and Minnesota both moved from off-campus to new on-campus stadiums in 2009. Both saw initial attendance bumps before attendance dropped below pre-new-stadium levels.
Maybe if Colorado State thinks that out-of-state students will come based on a winning football team, it should skip all this stadium-building nonsense and just pay for some better players. Oh wait.
In 1995 Boise State had about a 14,000 enrollment and $31 million endowment. Now it’s 23,000 and about $80 million. There’s no way of knowing conclusively that Boise’s success is mostly from football, but if not then it’s an incredible coincidence.
The price tag seems high, but the reality is that having an off campus football stadium is a major handicap. CSU building a new on-campus stadium makes sense. I just wonder if it needs to be quite that expensive.
The current stadium is perfectly fine. I went to Hughes stadium in the 90’s and enjoyed the atmosphere and the stadium very much. I see no need for a new stadium at CSU..
Ben:
1.) Without a football program at all, the University of Texas at Arlington has seen enrollment jump from 18,662 in 1998 to 33,439 today (almost doubling).
2.) Without any football success or even an FBS-level program, Portland State’s enrollment has doubled since 1995 (14,348 to 28,731).
3.) Also without a football program at all, Cal State Fullerton’s enrollment has jumped 66%, from 22,604 to 37,677.
And it’s not as though you can just write that data off due to population growth in some states versus others. Population growth since 1995:
Texas: 37%
Idaho: 33%
Oregon: 22%
California: 20%
Perhaps students, who are able to enroll easier than ever due to various programs, are increasingly open to the idea of enrolling at urban universities, regardless of colleges’ status as it pertains to ‘flagship’ status?
I didn’t bother to research more than those, but I would be surprised to not see similar trends at other large urban state schools that don’t even have football programs (Cal State Long Beach, Virginia Commonwealth, George Mason, IUPU-Indianapolis, Wisconsin-Milwaukee, UC Irvine, etc.).
An on campus stadium is always more desirable, not only for football, but soccer, rugby, concerts, graduations etc. I am opposed to spending state monies on a stadium but if individuals & corporation want to contribute to create a facility that will be an asset for the next hundred years, I’m all for it. Think long term. It may not solve all problems, but it will be a positive for CSU & the state of Colorado.
Ben,
I wonder what the value of $31 million from 1995 would be today if it were simply invested in a very conservative set of assets, where the managers did next to nothing? Maybe not $80 million, but probably pretty close. Point is that the difference in endowments could well have more to do with the overall increase (with some big spikes) in asset values over the last 20 years. It certainly doesn’t mean that Boise raised $50 million.
“…Maybe not $80 million, but probably pretty close…”
The “Total S&P Price Return” from 9/95 to 9/13 is 191%, so $31M becomes $90M. That doesn’t allow for any withdrawals.
http://dqydj.net/sp-500-return-calculator/
No offense to Boise State but an $80M endowment for a school that’s been around since the ’30’s and has 23,000 students is kinda sad.
Does it even make sense for a Mountain West Conference school to dole out this kind of money? The power in college football is shifting toward the direction of just a few major conferences so quickly at the expense of conferences like the Mountain West that I can’t understand the justification for plunking down 10-digits for a new facility. If you’re not in a power conference, you’re essentially irrelevant, stuck in a purgatory where you can’t compete for the best players, can’t compete for a national championship no matter what your record and can’t get on television like the big schools. Is this new stadium going to move the needle in any significant way for Colorado State that it justifies the expense? I can’t see any way it does.
Go big or go home. Live courageously. Sing loud. Take risks.
These are all statements we heard at our graduation commencement speeches. Words of life to people encouraging us to take the chance and be the best.
If you want to move forward you need to take risks. My mentor always tells me “if you’re not pedaling, you’re probably coasting…and if you’re coasting you’re probably going down hill.”
Hughes stadium is the “status-quo” and the prime example of NOT living dangerously.
I’d prefer for CSU to be constantly improving…just like I live my life. Every year be better. Nobody ever got anywhere worth getting without some risks. Add up the facts, an on campus stadium isn’t even that big a risk. Not only is Hughes stadium 4 miles off campus, but it’s one of the WORST stadiums in college football. Woody Paige from the Denver Post wrote an article about how he’s visited no less than 86 college football stadiums and said Hughes ranks in the bottom 5. OUCH! Not to mention, it’s 45 years old now. This is like driving around in your first car. Sure it has some appeal and nostalgia, but eventually it’s just not gunna run anymore!! Grow up people. Live a little on the edge. Quit making decisions out of fear. If you haven’t learned this yet, try this on and change your life. Live life out of courage and not fear. You’ll paralyze yourself if you are always wondering “but what if it doesn’t work.”
Does Hughes have some tread left on the tires still – Yes. Could the whole thing back-fire on CSU? Maybe. But is it still worth the risk to replace it now and hopefully see a bump across the board in athletics and out of state enrollment? Definitely!
Our school needs something big to get the alum and new students excited. We’re slowly getting our butts kicked by schools like Metro and CU who are constantly willing to put in more and push through these debates and obstacles. Let’s live with some courage and make this school great.
Go big or go home. You’ll never go anywhere if you’re too scared it won’t work. Didn’t people used to say we had the “biggest sac in the WAC?” What happened to that sac. Grow a pair and let’s build this awesome thing!
Oh, it’s a testicle thing? Now I understand completely.
Boise was a UW-Milwaukee style commuter school forever. It’s true that other mid sized public schools have seen enrollment a climb, but the general population growth in north Texas and southern California has outpaced Boise’s.
On the endowment it’s true that $80 million is far from elite, but it’s an impressive amount for a commuter school in a relatively sparsely populated state.
Ben:
Funny you should compare Boise to UW-Milwaukee.
UWM enrollment, 1995: 15,038
UWM enrollment, 2013: 29,768
That’s a bigger increase than Boise’s without a football program or a noticeable bump in population (comparatively). UWM also has a $184 million endowment.
Boise State’s football success has had virtually nothing to do with the university’s growth or endowment. It’s growing just like other urban options are in other states and its endowment is actually underdeveloped.
“This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen.”
I have to concur with that quote.
It might make sense to emphasize football if the university is primarily an entertainment business. And it might be, though I hope not.
However, if CSU is primarily about educating Colorado kids, and the stadium itself is not profitable without public or private subsidies, put the money in the education side of the operation.